Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Foreign cycling infrastructure

Furthermore, I disagree entirely with your general opinions about motor traffic. That's more of the cyclist inferiority attitude in evidence.

No, that's motorist superiority sir. That is what I see on the streets... that is what is exemplified daily by motorists... especially the ones that buy into the whole Hummer mindset... where they purposely sell "motorist superiority" as part of their advertising package. (of course these days the Hummer folks are pushing some other charateristic... touting Hummers as "restoring manhood"... sigh... I guess a car is not just a car, eh?)

Call Motorist Superior what it is... not something that besmirches the character of the cyclists that are out there trying to share the road.

And yes I am well aware of motorist superiority.

BTW I know you disagree with "some" of my general opinions about motor traffic, but not entirely all of them, we have agreed in the past about how poorly sweeping intersection ramps treat cyclists.

No, that's motorist superiority sir. That is what I see on the streets... that is what is exemplified daily by motorists... especially the ones that buy into the whole Hummer mindset... where they purposely sell "motorist superiority" as part of their advertising package. (of course these days the Hummer folks are pushing some other charateristic... touting Hummers as "restoring manhood"... sigh... I guess a car is not just a car, eh?)

Call Motorist Superior what it is... not something that besmirches the character of the cyclists that are out there trying to share the road.

And yes I am well aware of motorist superiority.

BTW I know you disagree with "some" of my general opinions about motor traffic, but not entirely all of them, we have agreed in the past about how poorly sweeping intersection ramps treat cyclists.

I take it that you disapprove only of those motorists who consider their large vehicles superior to the motorists with smaller vehicles, whose vehicles must therefore be considered inferior. If size is the measure, then the same logic, as exercised by the same persons, says that cyclists are the lowest of all.

So, you consider me to be besmirching the character of the cyclists that are out there trying to share the road? Well, yes, I do, and quite rightfully too. Cyclists don't have to try to share the road, as your inferiority feeling expresses it. All that cyclists need to do is to use the roadway and it is automatically shared.

Misspeak? Baloney. Eyewitness report! I never saw anyone riding a bike and wearing Lycra shorts in The Netherlands except for English speaking foreigners at the VVV office in full tourist mode, or club cyclists in full clubie uniforms on weekend pelotons. Same goes for the wearing of Styrofoam cycling attire too.

But truth be told, while I saw plenty of Lycra shorts being worn by pedestrians on Gay Pride Day in Amsterdam, I did not see any Styrofoam Hats being worn.

Well, so what? It just happens that in The Netherlands the urban characteristics are such that speed and endurance are not needed to make the kinds of trips that the local cyclists make. It is silly to pretend that we here in the USA claim that vehicular cycling requires cycling sporting clothes. That is irrelevant to vehicular cycling. On the other hand, we do claim that the American climate and distances (not the style of cycling) make cycling sporting clothing desirable.

I take it that you disapprove only of those motorists who consider their large vehicles superior to the motorists with smaller vehicles, whose vehicles must therefore be considered inferior. If size is the measure, then the same logic, as exercised by the same persons, says that cyclists are the lowest of all.
I think you may actually have captured the motorist superiority disorder here, John.


So, you consider me to be besmirching the character of the cyclists that are out there trying to share the road? Well, yes, I do, and quite rightfully too. Cyclists don't have to try to share the road, as your inferiority feeling expresses it. All that cyclists need to do is to use the roadway and it is automatically shared.
yeah, right. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well, so what? It just happens that in The Netherlands the urban characteristics are such that speed and endurance are not needed to make the kinds of trips that the local cyclists make. It is silly to pretend that we here in the USA claim that vehicular cycling requires cycling sporting clothes. That is irrelevant to vehicular cycling. On the other hand, we do claim that the American climate and distances (not the style of cycling) make cycling sporting clothing desirable.
Right.

To think that where you ride on the road has something to do with how you dress is odd.

In addition to climate and distances, many places in the U.S., like San Diego, seem to be a lot hillier that most older European cities.

All that cyclists need to do is to use the roadway and it is automatically shared.

yeah, right. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yeah, right.
For example:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113

Yeah, right.
For example:

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113
Sorry, but your average cyclist doesn't want to ride in traffic like that.

Sorry, but your average cyclist doesn't want to ride in traffic like that.

Then have them travel some other way or go live somewhere else. What is illustrated is the best way to travel by bicycle in the modern city. It would be different if a safer and more convenient system had been invented. Then you would have a basis for argument, but this ideal system has not been invented and is unlikely to be invented.

I think you may actually have captured the motorist superiority disorder here, John.


yeah, right. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well, yes. But the other side of the coin is the cyclist-inferiority disorder; they are one and the same, inseparable. It would be different if this was felt only by motorists, but it is not. The view by motorists, and remember that I have always said that it was created by motorists for their own convenience, seeps down to do harm to cyclists, both by the official actions that discriminate against cyclists and by the feelings of inferiority so felt by cyclists. And you are no exception, randya, for your writing on this subject are full of feelings that you are unequal to motorists, or to motor vehicles, that you are unable to operate properly and with confidence in traffic.

Sorry, but your average cyclist doesn't want to ride in traffic like that. That's irrelevant. It supports the contention that you denied: All that cyclists need to do is to use the roadway and it is automatically shared.

And as far as what average cyclists want, speak for yourself.
I think the average cyclist has no conception that this is even an option.

Gene likes to talk about PSAs. How about showing clips like this as PSAs during the Superbowl and other TV programs?

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113

That's irrelevant. It supports the contention that you denied: All that cyclists need to do is to use the roadway and it is automatically shared.

And as far as what average cyclists want, speak for yourself.
I think the average cyclist has no conception that this is even an option.

Gene likes to talk about PSAs. How about showing clips like this as PSAs during the Superbowl and other TV programs?

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113
how about showing these (http://www.bikemaine.org/share_the_road.htm) PSAs?

I take it that you disapprove only of those motorists who consider their large vehicles superior to the motorists with smaller vehicles, whose vehicles must therefore be considered inferior. If size is the measure, then the same logic, as exercised by the same persons, says that cyclists are the lowest of all.

So, you consider me to be besmirching the character of the cyclists that are out there trying to share the road? Well, yes, I do, and quite rightfully too. Cyclists don't have to try to share the road, as your inferiority feeling expresses it. All that cyclists need to do is to use the roadway and it is automatically shared.

I honestly would love that to be the case, but my many years of cycling have shown me that there are plenty enough motorists out there that simply do not share... They have a very very poor case of "mine" and work to express it every chance they get. I have managed to avoid injury when they refused to share. But certainly their behaviour was akin to a 2 year old NOT SHARING.

John I say you besmirch cyclists as you consider them inferior by your expression... when in fact the problem is that motorists consider themselves superior.

That's irrelevant. It supports the contention that you denied: All that cyclists need to do is to use the roadway and it is automatically shared.

And as far as what average cyclists want, speak for yourself.
I think the average cyclist has no conception that this is even an option.

Gene likes to talk about PSAs. How about showing clips like this as PSAs during the Superbowl and other TV programs?

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=278113

Frankly I think it would be a great idea. We are in full agreement on that! :beer:

how about showing these (http://www.bikemaine.org/share_the_road.htm) PSAs?

I would like to see this one at the superbowl... very professional, well produced.

http://www.bikemaine.org/pdfs/motorists.wmv

It is silly to pretend that we here in the USA claim that vehicular cycling requires cycling sporting clothes. That is irrelevant to vehicular cycling. On the other hand, we do claim that the American climate and distances (not the style of cycling) make cycling sporting clothing desirable.
One, what is silly is your latest straw man argument. Who claimed anything of the sort about vehicular cycling requiring any clothes at all? Nobody, that's who.

Two, also silly is the Forester assumption/guesstimate that American bicycle commuting distances are invariably significantly longer than European. Or that significant numbers of Americans are willing to bicycle commute at much greater distances than Europeans.

Three, also silly is the Forester assumption about the uniformity of an American climate that requires a different concept of appropriate clothing for cycling than European

I would like to see this one at the superbowl... very professional, well produced.

http://www.bikemaine.org/pdfs/motorists.wmv
Excellent.

Thanks, Gene. I've seen many yards in Atlanta with a "Share the Road" sign posted in it.

:) (I wish there was a teardrop smiley.)

Three, also silly is the Forester assumption about the uniformity of an American climate that requires a different concept of appropriate clothing for cycling than European
The main difference was our receptivity to Dupont in the US, and a multi-decade war on wool. ;)

Forester is severely out of touch with respect to children and cycling. Bike paths are to protect the children from their own mistakes.

I guess he hadn't noticed that many of them are too young to have the basic skills needed to ride a bicycle in traffic safely. I'm talking about really basic skills, like staying on task, following suggested procedures, being aware of things around you. Children might be ok to ride in traffic on residential or quiet streets with an adult present to constantly remind them to stay on task, follow the rules, stay alert etc, but alone, they should remain separated from traffic for their protection.

Check it out sometime. You'll see that where there is a bike path near a school that is where you will see kids riding and walking to school. Where there is not, that is where you will see children arriving only by car or bus.

Forester is severely out of touch with respect to children and cycling. Bike paths are to protect the children from their own mistakes.

I guess he hadn't noticed that many of them are too young to have the basic skills needed to ride a bicycle in traffic safely. I'm talking about really basic skills, like staying on task, following suggested procedures, being aware of things around you. Children might be ok to ride in traffic on residential or quiet streets with an adult present to constantly remind them to stay on task, follow the rules, stay alert etc, but alone, they should remain separated from traffic for their protection.

Check it out sometime. You'll see that where there is a bike path near a school that is where you will see kids riding and walking to school. Where there is not, that is where you will see children arriving only by car or bus.

sbhikes is merely repeating superstition to support the same superstition.

First, she asserts that "bike paths are to protect the children from their own mistakes." In other words, bike paths make cycling safe for the incompetent. Well, some do but most do not, and those that do are more likely to be located where they serve a recreational purpose than located to serve the transportational purpose that sbhikes postulates. The fact that child cyclists may be found even on paths that do not make cycling safe for the incompetent is no indication of the capability of the children, but merely reflects that their parents possess the same false belief that sbhikes has just stated.

I think that sbhikes has an idealized view of cyclists, including child cyclists, as being sufficiently incompetent as to warrant the kinds of facilities that sbhikes desires. In short, the idealization is that which is required to justify bikeways.

I, on the other hand, note that any child who is competent to participate in a soccer game has the ability, if trained, to participate in the traffic pattern at the level of residential streets.

Who claimed anything of the sort about vehicular cycling requiring any clothes at all?
Fourth annual World Naked Bike Ride (http://www.ciclonudista.net/inicio_en.htm) coming up June 10, 2007!!!

:D

Fourth annual World Naked Bike Ride (http://www.ciclonudista.net/inicio_en.htm) coming up June 10, 2007!!!

:D
I b ther. Hablamos Espanol? Italiano? ;)

quote:

Justice on the streets, this is what we claim with a strong conviction and in earnest, but cheerfully as well, having a good time. [inserted by lbm :D] Cars impose their law and order on us: speed, high-handedness, fumes and violence. That is why when we move day by day on our bikes we transform our mobility into an everyday disobedience act. If, on top of that, we demonstrate naked on our bikes we turn disobedience into an exemplary protest.

baby, ahm nekkid... :D

(where in h did you get this cool stuff, randy? :roflmao: luv it man )

ahm workin' june 10, man ;)

maybe i can ride nekkid at home with wifey!

My wife just said, "You can't protect your nutz!" :eek:

I guess we're back to the impotency thread, now...

Where do I get it? I live in Portland and I like to have bike fun!!! Do you really think I camp out on BF and argue with Philistine sourpusses all day long?!?!?! :eek:

Two naked rides in Portland that day:

DAYTIME WORLD NAKED BIKE RIDE
Glisan and NE 39th Ave (Joan of Arc Statue) 6/9/07 2:00pm
Over 50 riders in 2006 can't be wrong: riding nekkid when it is SUNNY and WARM is sublime. This ride will finish at the Joustdown at Col Summer's Park. Cody Cougar Bikencamp, 2006 Video

WORLD NAKED BIKE RIDE
606 SE Madison (Organics To You, same as the Dance Party) 6/9/07 11:59pm
The name says it all. See www.worldnakedbikeride.org for more info. The ride will leave from the Pedalpalooza Kick Off Dance Party at 11:59 PM and return for more dancing. Portland has the largest naked ride in North America ... the ride is as naked as you want to be. Note: To be admitted to the party you must be 18 and older. Please bring your ID if you want to get into the party.

Click on the PP graphic in my sig for the full Pedalpalooza schedule, over 100 events in two weeks! I'll be at the ZooBomb Century for sure and all those food rides sound too good to turn down!

While working in Switzerland about 10 years ago I used my weekends to do cycle touring by using a combination of cycling and the train system. I would rent bikes at train stations and ride around the towns and cities I visited and then either take the bike on the train or leave it at the train station (it didn't have to be the same station I rented it from). I rode on bike paths and roads and found the cycling and the supporting infrastructure (ie. bike paths, bike rental facilities, a public transit system that encouraged cyclists) enviable.

This weekend I did a ride quite similar to the kind of transportation/touring/recreational riding I've been doing for 35+ years. I rode to Cape Cod to visit in-laws for one evening, then to the Providence, RI area to visit family and then intended to head back to Boston by bike but it got quite late and so I did as I've been doing with some frequency in the last few years- took the commuter rail with the bike. I then put my lights on the road bike and rode the bike path home from downtown Boston to Newton (about 10 miles). Thanks to the efforts of advocacy groups like MassBike the MBTA has become more and more accepting of bikes on the train. Years ago the commuter rail did not run as often from Providence, if at all, and it did not allow unboxed bicycles.

On Sunday night I was one of 5 people on the train who had all done similar rides. We chatted about the pleasure of the combination of the train and the bike. This is something new in America. This did not happen when I started cycling in the late 60's early 70's.

The comfortable ride on the train, the bike ride along the Charles River, on the bike path, at night, unimpeded by cars and traffic- much more like riding along Lake Geneva than I could ever have imagined. A utopian dream of a lifestyle I've had since I was a teenager more of a reality in my 50's than I expected. And as if to gild the lily the bike path is actually getting some repaving, regrading and widening due to a federal grant. Literally the first improvements I've seen in 27 years of riding the Charles River Path. Change happens, if anything is an illusion it's the status quo, in fact, the only constant in life is change. Sometimes the change is for the better and in my opinion these changes in transportation infrastructure are welcome improvements.:)

PS-

maybe some of you thought that kind of infrastructure could only be supported in old flat places like Switzerland and never work in America but I still say it's possible.;)


many places in the U.S., like San Diego, seem to be a lot hillier that most older European cities.

While working in Switzerland about 10 years ago I used my weekends to do cycle touring by using a combination of cycling and the train system. I would rent bikes at train stations and ride around the towns and cities I visited and then either take the bike on the train or leave it at the train station (it didn't have to be the same station I rented it from). I rode on bike paths and roads and found the cycling and the supporting infrastructure (ie. bike paths, bike rental facilities, a public transit system that encouraged cyclists) enviable.

This weekend I did a ride quite similar to the kind of transportation/touring/recreational riding I've been doing for 35+ years. I rode to Cape Cod to visit in-laws for one evening, then to the Providence, RI area to visit family and then intended to head back to Boston by bike but it got quite late and so I did as I've been doing with some frequency in the last few years- took the commuter rail with the bike. I then put my lights on the road bike and rode the bike path home from downtown Boston to Newton (about 10 miles). Thanks to the efforts of advocacy groups like MassBike the MBTA has become more and more accepting of bikes on the train. Years ago the commuter rail did not run as often from Providence, if at all, and it did not allow unboxed bicycles.

On Sunday night I was one of 5 people on the train who had all done similar rides. We chatted about the pleasure of the combination of the train and the bike. This is something new in America. This did not happen when I started cycling in the late 60's early 70's.

The comfortable ride on the train, the bike ride along the Charles River, on the bike path, at night, unimpeded by cars and traffic- much more like riding along Lake Geneva than I could ever have imagined. A utopian dream of a lifestyle I've had since I was a teenager more of a reality in my 50's than I expected. And as if to gild the lily the bike path is actually getting some repaving, regrading and widening due to a federal grant. Literally the first improvements I've seen in 27 years of riding the Charles River Path. Change happens, if anything is an illusion it's the status quo, in fact, the only constant in life is change. Sometimes the change is for the better and in my opinion these changes in transportation infrastructure are welcome improvements.:)

PS-

maybe some of you thought that kind of infrastructure could only be supported in old flat places like Switzerland and never work in America but I still say it's possible.;)

Extending a cycling trip by using train transportation is not new at all. Indeed, one of the early League of American Wheelmen efforts was to get railroads to accept bicycles as baggage. In the years since 1945 I have extended cycling trips by using trains in the San Jose/Oakland Area, and in the Boston Area, and in Santa Barbara, and in the Salinas Valley; many of those trips were club trips. The practice became impractical as the railroads ceased having baggage cars and baggage handling on many trains, and the number of trains decreased as well.

Putting the bike in a box is a huge pain. I wish they would end that requirement.

I talked to a guy with a folder once. I think he said he was from Boston. He said he gets a lot of grief from the conductors on the train when he brings his folder on board. He tries first to bring it on board unfolded. If they argue with him, he folds it. If they still argue with him he puts it in a bag. If they just won't let him on, he'll either wait for another train or figure out something else. America needs to get better about this.

maybe some of you thought that kind of infrastructure could only be supported in old flat places like Switzerland and never work in America but I still say it's possible.;)

How useful is that bike path for transportational (rather than recereational) purposes? I've never been on it.

The MAX trains in Portland accept bikes of all standard sizes, at all hours of the day. The only drawback is that sometimes during peak hours there are too many bikes on the train and you have to wait for the next one. The ZooBomb record is something like 80 (mostly small) bikes in a single-car train.

How useful is that bike path for transportational (rather than recereational) purposes? I've never been on it.

My wife uses it daily for her commute to Boston University and would not commute were it not for the bike path. I use it 75% of the time for my commute further downtown and when I'm in a hurry, when it's peak season and crowded or it has not been plowed in the winter then I use streets for my commute.

It's used very regularly by bike commuters. It's been in deteriorating condition for the past 25 years so it can be a bit funky in places but the payoff is the ride is quite pleasant. I love it at night.


The MAX trains in Portland accept bikes of all standard sizes, at all hours of the day. The only drawback is that sometimes during peak hours there are too many bikes on the train and you have to wait for the next one. The ZooBomb record is something like 80 (mostly small) bikes in a single-car train.


Really? but I'm sure that's nothing new is it? I mean I'm sure it's been that way since the 1940's... and certainly nothing has changed in the way cyclists use trains in America since that time. :rolleyes:

... The practice became impractical as the railroads ceased having baggage cars and baggage handling on many trains, and the number of trains decreased as well.

and my point is that with increased gas prices, a more crowded urban environment, increased emphasis on public transportation as a solution to highway congestion, more bicycles being used for transportation etc etc etc it is becoming more practical to increase the number of trains and allow bicycles to be taken on (without the inconvenience of boxing them). The MBTA has expanded the commuter rail, increased the frequency of trains and allowed for bikes to be taken on trains. All of these are CHANGES in the transportation infrastructure that encourage cycling and have occured in the last 2 decades and are more in keeping with a European model than an American one.

Am I reading your posts wrong or are you saying that these kinds of changes are impossible pipe dreams that are anti-cyclist in the long run?

Really? but I'm sure that's nothing new is it? I mean I'm sure it's been that way since the 1940's... and certainly nothing has changed in the way cyclists use trains in America since that time. :rolleyes:
There was no light rail in Portland until the 1980's. Well, there had been commuter trains before WWII but they were all replaced with highways after the war. Anyway, to make a long story short (a rare skill around here), Portland fought off a federal urban highway scheme in the 70s and used the money saved to build the first light rail line instead. Light rail certainly has it's detractors, mostly of the ADC type (Randall Otoole for example), but it is well used and has steadily expanded from the original line and now serves suburbs to the north, east and west, plus the airport, and will soon serve the southern part of the city as well. It's been a great success and the proposed highway that was defeated back in the 70s to start it all would have destroyed many vibrant inner city neighborhoods, including my own.

I grew up in NYC which has good urban and suburban rail, and have traveled in Spain and France, which both have excellent rail systems. In my opinion, the US would really benefit from investments in both intra and interurban rail, and being bicycle friendly should be a given for any serious rail system.

Am I reading your posts wrong or are you saying that these kinds of changes are impossible pipe dreams that are anti-cyclist in the long run?
Trains, like bicycle facilities, are anti-car, and therefore they are not 'reasonable or logical' according to the twisted logic of Foresterology.

Trains, like bicycle facilities are anti-car, and therefore they are not 'reasonable or logical' according to the twisted logic of Forsterology.

Randya, you are completely deluded about my motivation, and you persist in your delusion despite corrections offered. I rate things such as bicycles, cars, trucks, trains, ships, planes, on their utility for particular tasks. I do not rate them on their effect on motoring. That is why I am not an anti-motorist, only a realist.

You, on the other hand, are a rabid anti-motorist, and for that reason you believe that I am some evangelist for motoring who must evaluate all transportational methods according to their assistance to motoring. It is people like you, and there are many, who cause me to strongly oppose your method of thought. That is, I have become strongly opposed to anti-motorism because of the harm that that has done to cycling and, even more strongly, because it is largely a farrago of nonsense that pains reasonable intellects but is in political power.

and my point is that with increased gas prices, a more crowded urban environment, increased emphasis on public transportation as a solution to highway congestion, more bicycles being used for transportation etc etc etc it is becoming more practical to increase the number of trains and allow bicycles to be taken on (without the inconvenience of boxing them). The MBTA has expanded the commuter rail, increased the frequency of trains and allowed for bikes to be taken on trains. All of these are CHANGES in the transportation infrastructure that encourage cycling and have occured in the last 2 decades and are more in keeping with a European model than an American one.

Am I reading your posts wrong or are you saying that these kinds of changes are impossible pipe dreams that are anti-cyclist in the long run?

Not at all. I have long advocated the bicycle/train mixed mode trip as the ideal way for long-distance daily trips, because the bicycle provides the needed flexibility at each end of the trip, while the train provides the fast long haul. However, there are distinct problems about charging the proper fee for such a service, and with providing it in the commuting direction at commuting hours.

Randya, you are completely deluded about my motivation, and you persist in your delusion despite corrections offered. I rate things such as bicycles, cars, trucks, trains, ships, planes, on their utility for particular tasks. I do not rate them on their effect on motoring. That is why I am not an anti-motorist, only a realist.

You, on the other hand, are a rabid anti-motorist, and for that reason you believe that I am some evangelist for motoring who must evaluate all transportational methods according to their assistance to motoring. It is people like you, and there are many, who cause me to strongly oppose your method of thought. That is, I have become strongly opposed to anti-motorism because of the harm that that has done to cycling and, even more strongly, because it is largely a farrago of nonsense that pains reasonable intellects but is in political power.

It's funny. Your first paragraph accuses Randya of doing exactly what you do to him in the second paragraph. You are an extremely emotional fellow. You should settle down a bit.

My wife uses it daily for her commute to Boston University and would not commute were it not for the bike path. I use it 75% of the time for my commute further downtown and when I'm in a hurry, when it's peak season and crowded or it has not been plowed in the winter then I use streets for my commute.

It's used very regularly by bike commuters. It's been in deteriorating condition for the past 25 years so it can be a bit funky in places but the payoff is the ride is quite pleasant. I love it at night.

Good to hear that some bike paths live up to the hype, at least some of the time.

Randya, you are completely deluded about my motivation, and you persist in your delusion despite corrections offered. I rate things such as bicycles, cars, trucks, trains, ships, planes, on their utility for particular tasks. I do not rate them on their effect on motoring. That is why I am not an anti-motorist, only a realist.

You, on the other hand, are a rabid anti-motorist, and for that reason you believe that I am some evangelist for motoring who must evaluate all transportational methods according to their assistance to motoring. It is people like you, and there are many, who cause me to strongly oppose your method of thought. That is, I have become strongly opposed to anti-motorism because of the harm that that has done to cycling and, even more strongly, because it is largely a farrago of nonsense that pains reasonable intellects but is in political power.
It's funny. Your first paragraph accuses Randya of doing exactly what you do to him in the second paragraph. You are an extremely emotional fellow. You should settle down a bit. Brian, what do you mean?

Are you suggesting that Mr. Forester is "completely deluded about [Randya's] motivation, and [he] persists in [his] delusion despite corrections offered"?

Are you suggesting that Randya is not at all motivated by anti-motoring sentiments and that Mr. Forester persists in being deluded about it despite corrections offered about that?

If that's what you're saying, where and when were those corrections offered?

If that's not what you're saying, what are you saying?

Not at all. I have long advocated the bicycle/train mixed mode trip as the ideal way for long-distance daily trips, because the bicycle provides the needed flexibility at each end of the trip, while the train provides the fast long haul. However, there are distinct problems about charging the proper fee for such a service, and with providing it in the commuting direction at commuting hours.


Glad to hear it.

So are you saying you would support the efforts of advocacy groups who promote the use of public transportation like commuter rail in combination with cycling? This would mean better and more secure bike racks at train stations, trains which more easily accomodate bicycles and more hours of service? Or even, as I used in Switzerland, bike rental facilities at train stations. Do you feel it's worth it to attempt to solve the "problems about charging the proper fee for such a service, and with providing it in the commuting direction at commuting hours." through responsible advocacy and/or legislation?

While this kind of advocacy would reduce dependence on the private automobile for some transportation needs for some people I would by no means classify such efforts as "anti-motorist". I'm sure that those who prefer to drive would appreciate a few less cars on the road and more available parking spaces. Do you see such advocacy as anti-motorist?

Good to hear that some bike paths live up to the hype, at least some of the time.

joejack- I appreciate your open minded response and feel I would be remiss if I left you with the impression that the Charles River path was without fault since I know you are not always a proponent of bike paths.

Some of it's positives:) :

it connects the western suburbs of Boston to the heart of downtown.

it has relatively few intersections.

it has scenic beauty.

portions of it are appropriately wide and smooth.

they have started to plow it more regularly in the winter.

it's a welcome alternative to the challenge of negotiating Boston's streets and traffic

Some of it's negatives:( :

some sections are in terrible disrepair- frostheaves, tree roots, broken pavement etc.

some of the intersections are poorly signaled and the curb cuts are at odd angles.

at night some of the car headlights are blinding due to the close proximity of the road.

it is so popular that in the warmer weather it can painfully overcrowded (granted my wife puts up with it without complaint for the most part but I find it intolerable).

I point out these problems because I feel that there has been a misconception that those of us who support bike paths and trails see them as a "panacea" for all ills that cyclists are exposed to on the road. Nothing could be further from the truth. All transportation infrastructures require constant reassessment since human needs are ever evolving. They also need constant maintenance.

As John Forester points out in a previous post, "I rate things such as bicycles, cars, trucks, trains, ships, planes, on their utility for particular tasks." I would agree but would add that those vehicles are nothing without their supporting infrastructures.

and so to paraphrase JF: I rate such things as bike paths, roads, streets, parkways, scenic by-ways, interstates, service roads, railway beds, ports, train stations, MUP's on their utility for particular tasks.

I think the US has been less resourceful and adaptive with regards to transportation infrastructure due to a wealth of open space and the low relative cost of fossil fuel. Now that we are running out of available land space and fossil fuel costs are rising we are moving, by necessity, closer to the European model.

Randya, Bek, Brian,

Since you guys seem familiar with Portland ... (maybe Donna? I cannot remember)

has anyone shown an improvement in motorist travel times with the implementation of bike lanes?

what about cyclist travel times?

-G

didn't realize Portland was a foreign country ;) but i imagine, because of its great bicycling infrastructure, might seem un-american to some of the VC-addled, "my bike is the same as a car" auto-centric bicyclists out there.

Maybe another thread, invisiblehand?

Randya, Bek, Brian,

Since you guys seem familiar with Portland ... (maybe Donna? I cannot remember)

has anyone shown an improvement in motorist travel times with the implementation of bike lanes?

what about cyclist travel times?

-G

I cannot say anything about time or even anything definite about absolute safety. All I can say is that when roads have been rebuilt, they are rebuilt with bike lanes, and it makes cycling easier. BTW, Donna and Randy are much better judges of Portland than I. I live outside Portland and only ride there occasionally anymore.

I don't see what travel times have to do with anything. The river is the pinch point for all commuters coming from the east and it's getting more congested all the time, bikes + cars, so I don't see how you can evaluate before and after, either. Additional complications are that any bike lanes in the inner city must take space from other uses of the ROW (either travel lanes or parking lanes) and/or requires narrowing other lanes (but they only installed them in the first place because they determined beforehand that the roadway capacity was available to do so), and most trips are hybrid, I only ride in a bike lane for about 1/4 of my commute, the arterial/viaduct/bridge part.

Hah! Very good Bek. Yes, I think I did hijack the thread for a moment. When I return from Albuquerque I will spend more time and submit a new post. My apologies to the original poster.

In brief here are my thoughts ...

I am becoming more convinced that some forms--"forms" is not a typo, there are some bad designs out there--of cycling facilities or cycling transportation program does improve conditions for cyclists across the board. While I find it difficult to tease out specific marginal effects--say from bike lanes--I think that the net effect is a positive one.

There are several reasons why I ask whether bike lanes improve travel times--certainly plausible since you could have fewer lanes that move faster and have less disruptions--is that if I were trying to convince a general constituency to approve funds for these programs, the easiest way is to demonstrate that it will better everyone.

Secondly, when I think about bike lanes (BLs) versus wide outside lanes (WOLs), if bike lanes result in shorter travel times for cyclists and motorists alike then choosing BLs over arguably safer WOLs becomes easier.

Thirdly, when I consider the cost of cycling programs, I like to include the social value (obviously in some rough form) when doing the mental calculation of "yea" or "nay". Travel times, transportation alternatives, driver safety, and recreational value seem to be four big components of social value. Travel times would be something that could be measured directly and has an obvious benefit to everyone. But that doesn't answer the question of whether we should spend resources on such projects. Suppose I told you that we could provide more homeless shelters or improve transportation along several arterial roadways, what would you pick? If you hate the homeless, then change the question to medical centers for the poor or better transportation. The question becomes more complicated if you consider how much to spend; i.e., some on homeless shelters AND transportation. Following my moniker, there is no free lunch.

Anyway, that is enough of this hijack. Back to your regular programming.

The river is the pinch point for all commuters coming from the east and it's getting more congested all the time, bikes + cars, so I don't see how you can evaluate before and after, either.
I know getting across the river and away from the pinch points is generally the longest part of any Portland commute to downtown, whether by car, bus, or bike. I can tell you that it takes me 15-20 minutes to get to work by bike and 30-35 minutes by bus. I've noticed me passing more cars in the pinch point area than them passing me. That's hardly scientific, but it's led me to suspect that I can get to work faster than a great many of them during peak commute times.


I only ride in a bike lane for about 1/4 of my commute, the arterial/viaduct/bridge part.
Me too. Unless I'm riding out in the suburban areas on roads where cars are consistently going 60 MPH in 40-50 MPH zones, I rarely encounter bike lanes outside of the area around the bridges on either side of the Willamette.