Vehicular Cycling (VC) - Rutgers paper on promoting cycling...

Portland did not come close to increasing ridership by 10x, and discerning causation from correlation is difficult.

I don't think VC or any other "program" will increase ridership to 5% in San Diego.

Indeed Portland has not increased ridership 10X (to increase ridership from the national figure of about 2% to the Pucher citings of 20% or more), but they have done a far better job than any other large US city showing at least a 10% ridership on certain bridges. (their "gateways")

You can view the Portlandbike.org report here (http://www.bikeportland.org/wp-content/Count%20Data%202006%20incl%20gender%20helmet%20use.pdf).

Now simply ask yourself how many other US cities have the commitment to do such a survey and report, much less do anything else to increase cycling ridership in their cities?

And a 5% ridershare in San Diego would still be doubling the amount of cyclists on the road... that alone would be a nice improvement.

Certainly we are not going to improve ridership in this city with the poor approach that is taken here now.... look back a year ago at the fiasco of the Texas street bike lane... and consider the lack of commitment that caused that poor bike lane to be installed after the resurfacing of that road. Consider also the lack of curb cuts at many bike paths throughout the city... including perhaps one of the best paths, along 56. Simple curb cuts... and yet there is no commitment to even that. These are simple yet subtle barriers to cycling... carried out on a regular basis.

And "no causation from correlation?" What a cop out... what exactly do you need... a 1:1 relationship between dollars spent and cyclists commuting? How much did the 5/805 bypass cost? How much has it "improved" the rush hour crush at 5/805? Show me the correlation there... heck show me any improvement at all for this "onion." (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20071130-2259-bn1orchids2.html)

The Grand Onion went to the Interstate 5/805 merge expansion lanes as an example of how not to deal with San Diego's chronic traffic congestion. The jury noted that last year's “People's Choice Awards” poll indicated that the top public project priority should be a North County trolley extension.

“So, here we have Caltrans and SANDAG (the San Diego Association of Governments that oversees regional transportation planning) trying to solve our transportation dilemma by pouring acres of concrete to expand the infamous 5/805 merge,” the jury said.

“The expansion project was well-managed but short-sighted. Billions spent and problem not solved. We can't keep adding freeway lanes indefinitely – it simply delays the inevitable. How long will will the automobile continue to dictate our land-use decisions?”

So yes, in spite of all the efforts Portland is expending, this is still an autocentric country... the land of Detroit and the big motor car... remember, we're addicted to oil...


At least Portland is putting forth effort. Meanwhile billions are spent on more freeway lanes throughout this country and what is the outcome of that? Show me the results... "causation from correlation..." Ha!

IT IS LONG PAST TIME TO TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT!

... Meanwhile billions are spent on more freeway lanes throughout this country and what is the outcome of that? Show me the results... "causation from correlation..." Ha!

IT IS LONG PAST TIME TO TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT!

Here's a good example of what Genec is talking about from my neck of the woods (Boston).

The other night we went to a holiday gathering with someone from where she works. I rode my bike to her place of employ and she, who normally bikes, had driven our car. We put my bike on the back of the car and left at 5:22pm and drove until 6:17pm to reach her colleagues house. The total distance: 7.15 miles- in 55 minutes!

This was through the heart of the 14.6 billion dollar traffic infrastructure "improvement" called the Big Dig, which is now officially "complete".

We couldn't help but ask- is the traffic like this every night? The answer, "That's pretty normal. But I get work done on the phone. I play CD's. It's my time to relax." He's also desperately trying to lose weight and drives 10 minutes more to the gym 4 nights a week for 45 minutes to an hour after he drives home. And he has a stack of parking tickets and literally $200 worth of quarters stashed by the door for meters every day, which he must run down and refill every two hours.

Naturally, the fact that we bike to work came up and the difference for him and his partner, who also does a commute into Boston daily, was that we have a bike path that pretty much takes us door to door to work (plus a mile or two of streets). Now, as my wife rightly pointed out, I would have just ridden on the roads from their home into Boston. But they simply wouldn't want to and to be honest I don't blame them. The route they would have to take is heavily travelled, several narrow bridges, poorly lit at night, car dealerships, strip malls, gas stations, bus and truck depots line the route.

Getting people out of the comfort of their car- a controlled environment and onto bikes means that they are suddenly subjected to the environment that they were once insulated from in their car. Not everyone wants to do this or should be expected to do this- no amount of "bicycle education" is going to brainwash them into thinking it's any "fun". A bike path running along the shore line or the river with trees and benches that connects to bike lanes going through residential neighborhoods would attract commuters like my wife's colleague. But we spent 14.6 billion dollars so that more people could sit in their cars for a longer time every day.

If you don't think traffic engineers and urban planners are studying the Big Dig project as a pretty dismal failure and looking for alternatives that would more than likely ease traffic by reducing the need for that many cars to be on the road then think again. You may refer to this as anti-motorist but it's simple logic.

From the San Diego Union:

Taking a new look at streets and sidewalks

By Neal Peirce
December 13, 2007

The cause has simmered for years – and we've all felt some of it: frustration with fast traffic that turns streets through our neighborhoods into corridors of fear. There is a resentment about narrow, rough or nonexistent sidewalks, a reluctance to have children cross high-speed roadways while walking to school. Bicyclists take their lives in their hands when venturing onto major roads.

Now, finally, there's an organized nationwide movement to fight the good fight for saner streets. It's a coalition mounting a nationwide campaign for city and town roadways that includes safe, quality space for pedestrians and cyclists and public transit users, accommodating their wishes just as seriously as those of car and truck drivers.

It's called, fittingly, the Complete the Streets movement (www.completestreets.org). Its members cover an amazing gambit – from America Bikes and AARP, Smart Growth America and the American Society of Landscape Architects to Paralyzed Veterans of America. The Institute of Transportation Engineers is even on board, amazing for a profession long known as the “throughput crowd” for its pushing of maximum numbers of vehicles at maximum feasible speed through cities and villages alike.

Complete Streets “are about a right of way for everyone out there traveling, walking or biking,” says Barbara McCann, the movement coordinator. All users of all ages and abilities, she asserts, need to be able to move safely along and across a complete street. And, McCann adds, “safety is a huge reason.”

As well it should be: Every 113 minutes across the United States, a motorized vehicle hits and kills a pedestrian or cyclist. Every eight minutes, one is injured, sometimes paralyzed. Most of Europe, by contrast, has worked for years at expanding walkways and bikeways, making intersections safer and erecting physical barriers to fast city and town traffic. On a per-mile basis, a German pedestrian has only a third as much chance of being a traffic fatality as his American counterpart; a German cyclist only half.

People tightly wed to the single-passenger car concept are least likely to accept the complete streets idea. But 90 percent of us, according to a survey by the National Association of Realtors, believe that new communities should be designed so we can walk more and drive less, and that public transportation should be improved and accessible.

States and cities are getting the message. Illinois this fall passed a complete streets law requiring the state's transportation department to include bicycling and walking facilities in all its urban-area projects. Five other states (Massachusetts, Florida, Maryland, Oregon, Rhode Island) now have some form of complete streets law on the books. More than 50 metro regions, counties or cities – Charlotte to Johnson County, Kan., Salt Lake City to Seattle – have passed similar statutes. Many others are now considering them.

Chicago, for example, is moving to narrower traffic lanes, median “refuges” and curb extensions for pedestrians, as well as converting four-lane roadways into three lanes with marked bike lanes.

But for “a really dramatic increase in cycling in cities,” says Tim Blumenthal, executive director of Bikes Belong, “painting stripes won't make enough people feel safe.” Paris is creating and protecting new bike lanes with vertical 1.5-foot separation posts. On New York's Ninth Avenue, one of four lanes of traffic has been removed and parked cars moved out several feet from the sidewalk, creating a safe cycle-only corridor.

Project for Public Spaces has some of the right advice for cities: “Stop planning for speed.” “Right-size” road projects in cities and suburbs to “reconnect communities to their neighbors, a waterfront or park.” And “think of transportation as public space” – roads, transit terminals, sidewalks, reconfigured to create pleasant environments, a true sense of place.

Finally, there's health. News reports indicate America's obesity epidemic “is leveling off” – but at outrageously high and dangerous weights. So what's the best cure? Walking? An average person walking half an hour a day would lose about 13 pounds a year. Blumenthal would have us think about “two miles, two wheels” – cycle or walk for the 41 percent of all our trips that are two miles or less.

Complete streets make the walking/cycling prospect sound far more attractive. And now the American Public Health Association is seeking to connect obesity with the increasingly dire climate-change challenge. Trading miles behind the wheel for increased walking, cycling and public transit can trim pounds and cut greenhouse gases simultaneously. Not to mention reducing smog and car deaths and registering less heart disease, osteoporosis and depression.

“This may present the greatest public health opportunity that we've had in a century,” says the University of Wisconsin's Jonathan Patz, president of the International Association for Ecology and Health.

He may be right. But we're not likely to get there until we make our streets and public realm safer and more appealing – the essence of the complete streets message.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071213/news_lz1e13peirce.html


Like I said... IT'S TIME FOR CHANGE!

I'm a fan of human-scaled street design, including keeping lane counts and turn radii modest, and have long promoted improved sidewalk and crossing facilities for pedestrians. I've also spent a lot of time advocating that important roads provide adequate space for motorists to pass cyclists in through lanes at safe and comfortable distance without changing lanes.

My main concern about "Complete Streets" regarding cycling is that its strongest proponents are often unable to consider a street "complete" unless there is some explicit form of segregation between cyclists and other vehicle traffic. I think most well-designed urban streets with adequate pavement width for comfortable passing distances between cyclists and motorists are better left without explicit segregation markings such as bike lane stripes, for the variety of reasons that we've hashed out before. I am concerned that the Complete Streets movement may serve to accelerate construction of badly designed segregated bike facilities, especially where they get shoe-horned in to urban locations like door zones or sidepaths, rather than supporting good integrated vehicular facilities.

I'd rather see stonger emphasis on making improvements in connectivity of well-designed human-scaled streets that support integrated vehicular cycling in a comfortable manner, and increasing the percentage of roads built that way, than the current emphasis on vehicle-type-segregation constructs within the street right-of-way.

And that specious advocacy platform of Sgoodri is exactly what the Rutgers paper describes as having marginalized American cycling. The VC platform espoused by Sgoodri is what marginalizes american bicycling and kept american cycling numbers where they are, compared to the european countries studied in the rutgers paper.

I'm a fan of human-scaled street design, including keeping lane counts and turn radii modest, and have long promoted improved sidewalk and crossing facilities for pedestrians. I've also spent a lot of time advocating that important roads provide adequate space for motorists to pass cyclists in through lanes at safe and comfortable distance without changing lanes.

My main concern about "Complete Streets" regarding cycling is that its strongest proponents are often unable to consider a street "complete" unless there is some explicit form of segregation between cyclists and other vehicle traffic. I think most well-designed urban streets with adequate pavement width for comfortable passing distances between cyclists and motorists are better left without explicit segregation markings such as bike lane stripes, for the variety of reasons that we've hashed out before. I am concerned that the Complete Streets movement may serve to accelerate construction of badly designed segregated bike facilities, especially where they get shoe-horned in to urban locations like door zones or sidepaths, rather than supporting good integrated vehicular facilities.

I'd rather see stonger emphasis on making improvements in connectivity of well-designed human-scaled streets that support integrated vehicular cycling in a comfortable manner, and increasing the percentage of roads built that way, than the current emphasis on vehicle-type-segregation constructs within the street right-of-way.

Sorry Steve, I tend to disagree with you only in that we need a more aggressive approach to street planning than is currently taking place in America now. While your specific area may have found a nice balance, the west is suffering from a strong case of "faster is better" with little regard for pedestrians or cyclists, and this trend is no where near providing "human-scaled street design."

While poor bike lanes and the like could be the result, it is up to us, the users, to keep politicians and traffic engineers honest with regard to the intent of Complete Streets... and not simply accept a painted line of any sort as a "solution."

The sad fact is that while San Diego did win an award for best large cycling city, simple things like poor bike lanes and the lack of curb cuts for even the best paths tend to continue to to be barriers for cyclists, and show that the commitment of this city toward alternative transportation is superficial, at best.

It is time for change.

...My main concern about "Complete Streets" regarding cycling is that its strongest proponents are often unable to consider a street "complete" unless there is some explicit form of segregation between cyclists and other vehicle traffic...

This is a characterization that is a means of reframing the argument that is divisive, inaccurate and non-productive.

Here in Boston we are well served by the Livable Streets Alliance. I support the Livable Streets objectives, which, like many groups who share similar ideals, have no specific agenda towards any one solution- such as segregated facilities. They work with the community to develop plans that work for each individual neighborhood.

Granted sometimes the result of their negotiations results in suggesting separated/segregated facilities but not due to a limited mindset but that it is often the most workable solution in the congested and challenging areas that most need restructuring. It doesn't mean they, or those that support their efforts, see segregated facilities as a panacea or the sole solution to the issues they are addressing.

These groups tend to be open minded and more than willing to listen to and support cyclists concerns about their rights to the road.

Here is some of the language from their mission statement:


Inspire a vision by sharing innovative transportation ideas from around the world

Build partnerships... help them collaborate effectively...

We build consensus for balanced, actionable transportation plans that result in more livable streets.

This is a characterization that is a means of reframing the argument that is divisive, inaccurate and non-productive.

Here in Boston we are well served by the Livable Streets Alliance. I support the Livable Streets objectives, which, like many groups who share similar ideals, have no specific agenda towards any one solution- such as segregated facilities. They work with the community to develop plans that work for each individual neighborhood.

Granted sometimes the result of their negotiations results in suggesting separated/segregated facilities but not due to a limited mindset but that it is often the most workable solution in the congested and challenging areas that most need restructuring. It doesn't mean they, or those that support their efforts, see segregated facilities as a panacea or the sole solution to the issues they are addressing.

These groups tend to be open minded and more than willing to listen to and support cyclists concerns about their rights to the road.

Here is some of the language from their mission statement:


Inspire a vision by sharing innovative transportation ideas from around the world

Build partnerships... help them collaborate effectively...

We build consensus for balanced, actionable transportation plans that result in more livable streets.


Well, I am a bit fuzzy on who the strongest proponents of Complete Streets are ... but with that in mind ... judging from my experience interacting with local advocacy that touts Complete Streets, Steve's description is accurate. An explicit bike lane, path, and so on is almost always their primary objective in reference to road engineering.

Well, I am a bit fuzzy on who the strongest proponents of Complete Streets are ... but with that in mind ... judging from my experience interacting with local advocacy that touts Complete Streets, Steve's description is accurate. An explicit bike lane, path, and so on is almost always their primary objective in reference to road engineering.

Hey around here Complete Streets means they finally filled in the huge crater like pot holes.

My biggest wish is simply to get curb cuts for all the unfinished bike paths in various areas of the county.

You don't need to convince me that quality cyclist education of young people is worth the time and trouble I agree. But a well designed curriculum is essential and there are more cost effective ways of doing it than handing them a poorly written $20 book.


From a previous post of mine:





Actually I think it's worth it to do both. Bike lanes, bike paths and bike facilities have a more immediate pay-off. Education, while useful, takes time. I think they'd best be done as part of a comprehensive and well-thought out program.

I am frequently accused of being antagonistic and arrogant towards people with opinions such as yours. And with good reason; you deserve such treatment. Any person who would seriously discuss using as a text for activities by school children a book that was obviously written for adults shows the extent to which his superstitious emotions have overcome whatever reason he had. And EC was not written merely for adults, it was deliberately written for thinking adults, mature people who consider their actions in their broader scope, a class of person clearly not frequent among bicycle advocates whose words and actions are in accordance with a recognizable group of the sillier popular superstitions.

For children in intermediate schools, I provide the pamphlet titled Cycling at the Intermediate Level. For children in elementary schools I provide no text at all, because children of that degree of maturity cannot apply words, and even pictures to any useful extent, to the conditions that they will see on the road. The text, if any is provided, goes to the parents so that they can understand what is being taught to their children.


And here this evidence of rational thought overcome by superstition appears again. You are ostensibly discussing the effect of education upon cyclist behavior in traffic. And you state that: " Bike lanes, bike paths and bike facilities have a more immediate pay-off. Education, while useful, takes time."

And yet all your "promotion" hinges on a select group of "trained cyclists" riding at high speeds...

Not so Honest yourself, eh!

Honesty, you write? Why then tell such a lie about what I promote? As I have written repeatedly, people such as you are either deliberate liars or write stupid falsehoods because you believe that they are true. My point, repeated in length and quantity, is that it is inadvisable, even unethical, to encourage (and even more to require, either by law or by societal pressure) cyclists to use facilities whose dangers require riding at a slower average speed than can be safely used on a normal roadway. Facilities intended for bicycle transportation should be designed for use by cyclists of all normal transportational speeds. Furthermore, and this should be particularly significant to you who advocate bicycle transportation instead of motor transportation, a considerable proportion of cyclists cycling to work are people who enjoy cycling and are capable of cycling at speeds thought high by some. If such persons are forced to ride on a facility whose dangers require slower speeds and increased delay, they will switch to motoring so as to save time that they can use for cycling in the way they like.

Perhaps it has not occurred to many in this discussion, that because we have only one life to live, we should live it in the ways that are best? Wasting time to achieve results that could be achieved equally well by other means is not a good way to spend one's life.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




Thank you for making my point!

I have been involved in bike advocacy since 1970. While there are a few accuracies in John Forester's observations most of his theories as to the cause of what he observes and the picture he paints of bike advocates that have not embraced his theories is laughably inaccurate.

What is a great shame, and intensely ironic, is how divisive many of the Foresterlite advocates became over the years and stalemated cycling advocacy by tying it up in endless bickering about lane position and overblown anxieties about the dangers of bike paths. It has ended up confusing well-intentioned legislators and paralyzed funding . For those legislators who opposed funding for biking programs it has provided them the necessary ammunition to veto virtually any proposal.

Finally more innovative, forward thinking, open minded advocates who see bicycles as part of an integrated restructuring of our urban spaces are moving things forward. Certainly some proposals will work better than others but at least some steps are taking place. The dominance of the anti-facilities crowd of bike advocacy that came into vogue in the mid-70's and held grip until the late 90's is looking more and more like the narrow minded, fear driven, self aggrandizing crowd that they always were. They chased a lot of us away from advocacy as we just figured the best way to advocate was just to get out there and ride our bikes. Many of them didn't ride all that much anyway. They spent most of their time talking. Now, they obviously spend much of their time on-line.:rolleyes:

I suppose that the general concealment and misattribution of motives by the bicycle advocates should not surprise any careful student of political affairs; that's just par for the political course. However, those who advocate vehicular cycling have been remarkably transparent about their motives and their reasons. Vehicular cyclists advocate what is best for those who choose bicycle transportation in the kinds of cities that we have today. That means cyclists operating in the vehicular manner on structures, both physical and societal, that properly accommodate such use. This concept is both conservative, in that it is based on existing knowledge and existing traffic laws, which demonstrate why it is the best and why it was the only legally-accepted method of roadway use, while also being very radical because America has never operated in this manner. Vehicular cyclists seek only those changes which correct the errors that have been created by the cyclist-inferiority, childish cycling popular superstition.

On the other hand, bicycle advocates see themselves, as buzzman writes above, "[M]ore innovative, forward thinking, open minded advocates who see bicycles as part of an integrated restructuring of our urban spaces...". These people are best described as the most radical of reactionaries who desire, by some means possible, to return American cities to those of the streetcar era, say no later than 1920. But these people are also the most conservative of radicals, because they base their program (or at least the cycling part of some larger program) on retaining the cyclist-inferiority, childish cycling errors that for so long kept American cycling at such a low ebb.

Vehicular cyclists seek to correct the errors of cyclist-inferiority, childish cycling to make cycling the best it can be in the modern city. Bicycle advocates seek to maintain and enlarge the cyclist-inferiority, childish cycling errors as part of their program to return American cities to the state of 1920.

Originally Posted by John Forester
"... One view advocates bike lanes and bike paths with the argument that such bikeways allow safe and convenient bicycle transportation in automotive cities by those who do not obey the rules of the road but operate in some childish manner. Both aspects of that argument have been proved false, were proved false decades ago..."

talk about framing an argument in such a way that you can't help but win it.

Who is advocating that bikeways allow safe and convenient transportation for those who do not obey rules of the road and operate in a childish manner?

Only the smallest percentage of bikeway advocates would make such a ridiculous argument.

Those of us who advocate for bikeways see them as occasional alternatives to roads, streets and highways that by design, current traffic volume, intersections, congestion, business district activity and other pertinent factors make a bikeway a welcome respite from the autocentric road engineering that currently exists in many urban environments.



Originally Posted by John Forester
"... In another way, they oppose motoring so much that they plan to attract the uninformed public into a scheme to return an automotive city to a streetcar city. That is not going to work as long as motoring is readily available. That motoring creates benefits is apparently difficult for the anti-motorist to believe, but it is the clear explanation for the growth of motoring and the society and urban pattern that it allows."


Look, I'll be candid here. You're creating arguments that simply don't exist. It's not "motoring" that many contemporary urban renewal advocates oppose but the effects that autocentric urban planning has had on our lives and living spaces. In the history of the automobile it initially replaced horse and buggies and street cars but eventually it has evolved to a kind of dominance over our living space that cannot compare to the impact of those prior means of transport. One simply has to compare photos of 1900 with the present day. Look at the what dominates the environment. 3-4000 lb automobiles capable of high speeds moving in a more narrow space than once existed to accomodate slower vehicles of far less mass. We've reached a tipping point of tolerance for the automobile in many urban areas where it's benefits no longer outweigh the negatives.

Compare these photos of 5th Avenue in NYC from 1900 to the present day. Has the automobile changed the city for the better?

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/1044d.jpg

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/motor-traffic-fifth-avenue.jpg

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s176/kencheeseman/Fifth_Avenue.jpg



The whole cyclist-inferiority and the phobia thing is so worthless, so unprovable and so off-putting an argument that it diminishes your ability to be a trustworthy or believable advocate. You will continue to receive the kind of resistance like you see in BF to your theories and techniques when you insist on resting it all on such a weak foundation.


Regarding your statements about bikeways. You advocate them as:"occasional alternatives to road [traffic conditions that] make a bikeway a welcome respite from the autocentric road engineering that currently exists in many urban environments." That's very nice, but methods of getting away from traffic cannot be a significant part of the surface transportation system, which, of course, consists of traffic. To participate in transportation, one has to travel between the centers of transportational activity, which means going along with the rest of the traffic in some way or another. And on this ephemeral hope you base all your advocacy? I thought that there was more to you than this pointless daydreaming. And, of course, advocating silly dreams is not real advocacy in either the engineering or the political senses; just as well that we have discovered that.

Your statement excluding all effects of skill must be based on the superstition that bikeways are ineffective in accident reduction, that cycling in the way that bikeways encourage is just as dangerous as any other method of cycling. So, just as well that we have elicited this belief from you as evidence about your opinions. But there are other bicycle advocates who do advocate that bikeways attract new cyclists, without caring whether or not those cyclists get themselves killed by incompetent operation.

Your statement regarding urban pattern asserts that I am inventing the arguments against motoring. Here are your words: "You're creating arguments that simply don't exist. It's not "motoring" that many contemporary urban renewal advocates oppose but the effects that autocentric urban planning has had on our lives and living spaces. ... Compare these photos of 5th Avenue in NYC from 1900 to the present day. Has the automobile changed the city for the better?" As for your self-assertive argument, the photos simply show the increase in motor traffic on Fifth Ave, Manhattan Island, NYC. The fact that you chose to show these photos demonstrates that your objection is to motoring itself, not to the urban changes brought about by motoring, which are not shown at all in the photographs, although they are implied in ways that you choose to ignore. Consider the most modern photograph (which naturally is not before my eyes at this moment). There are taxis and private cars, and, possibly, other types of motor vehicle. The taxis are carrying people from one part of NYC to another part of NYC, precisely so that the passengers can perform actions that they see as benefiting themselves, financially, socially, or politically, or whatever. They have chosen to use taxis as the best alternative. Note that in the 1900 photo there are no taxis, although some of the few vehicles might have been horse drawn cabs. The private cars in the modern photo have probably come from outside Manhattan (few people Manhattan residents keep their cars there). And they have come precisely so that their drivers and passengers can perform actions that they see as being beneficial to themselves, and they have chosen to come by private car because, despite the difficulty and expense of driving and parking in Manhattan, that provides the best service available to them. Note that all these activities contribute to the economic, social, and political welfare of New York City. Without these internal and imported activities, NYC would be merely a shell of its present self, no larger than it was in 1900.

Note also what those photos don't show. The photo from 1900 shows only the most fashionable street in the city; it fails to show the slums in which live the people who provide the money for those able to live on Fifth Ave. They were pretty bad slums, as all the evidence shows. Many of the cars that are shown in the modern photo are being used by the people who, without motoring, would have remained living in such slums. Motoring has enabled them to remove themselves from the city into more pleasant and healthful surroundings, without giving up their jobs in the City. Quite clearly that's beneficial to both the people and the city.

Now, I don't say that motoring has improved the life of the rich who lived on Fifth Ave and those of their descendants who have remained rich. (And I have known Manhattan residents from both Central Park West [near the Dakota apartment building for those of you who know little about NYC but pay attention to popular culture] and parts built in slum areas in the 1850s, down by the women's jail. One of the residents in that area was a custom bike frame maker named Alvin Drysdale, living in poverty where it was cheapest.) The rich manage to live quite well whether they choose Central Park West or Fairfield County, CT, or Sun Valley, ID, or Malibu, CA. But, in contrast, motoring has improved the life of a large part of the population, and therefore of the cities in which they live.

You close with condemnation of my psychological and political theories: "The whole cyclist-inferiority and the phobia thing is so worthless, so unprovable and so off-putting an argument that it diminishes your ability to be a trustworthy or believable advocate. You will continue to receive the kind of resistance like you see in BF to your theories and techniques when you insist on resting it all on such a weak foundation." Unprovable and off-putting is it? I don't wonder that it is off-putting to the those who think in the way you do, because it contradicts, in a factual way, so much of what you think you believe. Oh, unprovable, also? The article that you have presented is just one more demonstration of the ways that this dislike of motoring has driven you to advocacy (words, if not real acts) that are adverse to your real interests. The photos that you presented showed, not what you thought they presented, but only the increase in motor traffic. Nothing could be stronger demonstration of your motivation against motoring. And you argue that motor traffic is so disturbing that society should produce a way to get away from it while using bicycle transportation, which is just a pipe dream. And your argument implies, though you don't say it, that unskilled cycling on bikeways is just as dangerous as unskilled cycling elsewhere.

Do I have to say "QED", just to rub it in?

Here's a good example of what Genec is talking about from my neck of the woods (Boston).

The other night we went to a holiday gathering with someone from where she works. I rode my bike to her place of employ and she, who normally bikes, had driven our car. We put my bike on the back of the car and left at 5:22pm and drove until 6:17pm to reach her colleagues house. The total distance: 7.15 miles- in 55 minutes!

This was through the heart of the 14.6 billion dollar traffic infrastructure "improvement" called the Big Dig, which is now officially "complete".

We couldn't help but ask- is the traffic like this every night? The answer, "That's pretty normal. But I get work done on the phone. I play CD's. It's my time to relax." He's also desperately trying to lose weight and drives 10 minutes more to the gym 4 nights a week for 45 minutes to an hour after he drives home. And he has a stack of parking tickets and literally $200 worth of quarters stashed by the door for meters every day, which he must run down and refill every two hours.

Naturally, the fact that we bike to work came up and the difference for him and his partner, who also does a commute into Boston daily, was that we have a bike path that pretty much takes us door to door to work (plus a mile or two of streets). Now, as my wife rightly pointed out, I would have just ridden on the roads from their home into Boston. But they simply wouldn't want to and to be honest I don't blame them. The route they would have to take is heavily travelled, several narrow bridges, poorly lit at night, car dealerships, strip malls, gas stations, bus and truck depots line the route.

Getting people out of the comfort of their car- a controlled environment and onto bikes means that they are suddenly subjected to the environment that they were once insulated from in their car. Not everyone wants to do this or should be expected to do this- no amount of "bicycle education" is going to brainwash them into thinking it's any "fun". A bike path running along the shore line or the river with trees and benches that connects to bike lanes going through residential neighborhoods would attract commuters like my wife's colleague. But we spent 14.6 billion dollars so that more people could sit in their cars for a longer time every day.

If you don't think traffic engineers and urban planners are studying the Big Dig project as a pretty dismal failure and looking for alternatives that would more than likely ease traffic by reducing the need for that many cars to be on the road then think again. You may refer to this as anti-motorist but it's simple logic.


Well, that's a good description of living, today, in a walking city (walking cows, is the story) that imperfectly transformed itself into a streetcar city and now tries to exist in the automotive age. Which is the reason that people and firms leave. I have lived in Cambridge and cycled in Boston, and, in very recent years, cycled again there while not living there. No real problem. The fix that you assert is the following: "A bike path running along the shore line or the river with trees and benches that connects to bike lanes going through residential neighborhoods would attract commuters like my wife's colleague." Well, well, well! From what source will come the water to fill all these rivers that you plan to dig through town? From somewhere up in New Hampshire? Or do you plan to tap the Connecticut River? For the Charles surely has insufficient flow to fill sufficient rivers to provide the pleasant waterfront bike paths that you postulate. And what are you going to do about all those whom you displace from these river beds and banks? Or do you just consider these to be recruited from the natural decay of older urban centers as people move out? And what will you do about the transportational disruption caused by these rivers? At least the Big Dig has been covered over so that traffic can still cross it, but that would negate your dream.

For that matter, where is your evidence that the Big Dig increased the delay time for Boston traffic? You wrote that it has: "But we spent 14.6 billion dollars so that more people could sit in their cars for a longer time every day." The Big Dig was mismanaged; that is well accepted. But that it has increased (at least when open for traffic) the total delay time for Boston motor traffic? Please provide reasonably credible data on this point.

"A bike path running along the shore line or the river with trees and benches that connects to bike lanes going through residential neighborhoods would attract commuters like my wife's colleague." Well, well, well! From what source will come the water to fill all these rivers that you plan to dig through town? From somewhere up in New Hampshire? Or do you plan to tap the Connecticut River? For the Charles surely has insufficient flow to fill sufficient rivers to provide the pleasant waterfront bike paths that you postulate. And what are you going to do about all those whom you displace from these river beds and banks? Or do you just consider these to be recruited from the natural decay of older urban centers as people move out? And what will you do about the transportational disruption caused by these rivers? At least the Big Dig has been covered over so that traffic can still cross it, but that would negate your dream.

First of all, thank you for taking the time to address so many of my posts.

I will use the above portion of a post of yours to demonstrate a technique you continually use to reframe arguments: I suggested that a bike path running along the shore line or a river, which linked to bike lanes that ran through more residential streets of the city, would be more attractive to many cyclists than riding on some busy roads.

You then reframe the argument to imply that I am suggesting rechannelling rivers and displacing residents!:rolleyes:

The city of Boston is not a desert. It has a shore line, it has an existing river, it has residential cross streets that link the shore line and the city's center. The shore line from the South Shore of Boston, where my wife's colleague lives, runs through industrial, commercial shore line areas with large stretches of abandoned or city owned property and the UMASS Boston campus that could be linked to provide a passageway for a bike path without displacing residents. It could ultimately link with the existing bike path that runs along the Charles River.

If you see this as an impossibility or a "pipe dream" I suggest you ride in Manhattan. The West Side bike path is very similar to what I am suggesting for Boston. I heard the same arguments against that path and cross town bike lanes made 21 years ago when that was first proposed. Any city with the will to make these changes can do so. Ride along the Hudson on the West Side path some summer's eve. Stop for a beer at one of the many restaurants and cafes and businesses that now cater to the bike traffic. You want commerce- there it is. Is it an improvement over the abandoned land and crumbling buildings that once lined the West Side Highway? I think it is.

Also, lest you be inclined to paint me as some elitist- looking for special accomodations for cyclists to make things all "upscale" and tony. No, these improvements make urban life better for everyone. You must be familiar with the life and works of Frederick Law Olmsted, who is responsible for Central Park, Prospect Park, Boston's Emerald Necklace and many other urban respites designed for all the residents of the city. It was Dr. Paul Dudley White and others as far back as the Eisenhower Administration who envisioned similar alterations to the urban landscape that incorported bikeways into Olmsted's already successful urban parks. And if truth be told my own cycling "career" began because I was a working class kid who rode everywhere because he couldn't afford a car. And my choice of a career in the arts left me around poverty level well into my early 30's. I have had exactly the opposite experience to what you describe here:

Many of the cars that are shown in the modern photo are being used by the people who, without motoring, would have remained living in such slums. Motoring has enabled them to remove themselves from the city into more pleasant and healthful surroundings, without giving up their jobs in the City. Quite clearly that's beneficial to both the people and the city.


I have lived in economically deprived neighborhoods and was never served by owning a car while there- cars get broken into, cost too much to insure in the city, cost a fortune in parking (tickets), have to be moved constantly, always broke down, etc... Moving to a suburb and driving a car is even more of a challenge. More money on gas, more time spent commuting, still high insurance rates and how much do you think it costs to park a car in a city like Boston every day? It was certainly beyond my means when I was broke and I have no interest in shelling out that kind of cash to a park a car now that I can afford it- but a lot of other people are willing to and that's their perogative.

And by the way with regards "pleasant and healthful surroundings" cities can and are as healthy, if not healthier, a place to live as a suburb- primarily due to the fact that people walk as opposed to drive when they live in them.

As rural and suburban areas have grown, they have become more car dependent. Meanwhile, cities have reduced air pollution. As a consequence, the old urban health disadvantage has disappeared. City dwellers have higher life expectancies and better health on average (http://cunyurbanhealth.files.wordpress.com/2006/03/urban%20health%20advantage.pdf)[PDF] than people in suburbs or the country. And according to New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/news/features/35815/), New York City, probably the most urban of U.S. cities, has the greatest health advantage.

For that matter, where is your evidence that the Big Dig increased the delay time for Boston traffic? You wrote that it has: "But we spent 14.6 billion dollars so that more people could sit in their cars for a longer time every day." The Big Dig was mismanaged; that is well accepted. But that it has increased (at least when open for traffic) the total delay time for Boston motor traffic? Please provide reasonably credible data on this point.

unfortunately most of the current studies of the efficacy of the Big Dig and resultant "improvements" in driving time are done by the very same people responsible for the funding, building and maintenance of the facilities and they are (surprise!) quite positive. However, for Boston residents who ride on the rebuilt roads daily the reality does not match those reports. In ideal conditions it is, indeed, faster to make some commutes- particularly to the airport. But it's highly inconsistent as evidenced by the drive I described in my post- and my wife's colleague referred to as normal. (7.15 miles in 55 minues at rush hour). And do note that last night Boston suffered one of the worst traffic tie ups in our history during last night's snow storm. Though the tie-up was by no means caused by the Big Dig infrastructure it was certainly not alleviated by it's existence either.

And if there are any improvements in travel time they will more than likely be short lived as the Big Dig ages and the rate of congestion due to increasing traffic volumes reduces any existing benefits.

I would respond in more detail to some of your other posts but I find their tone so painfully patronizing that I'm unwilling to indulge you with too much of a response for fear I feed that beast.;)

However, those who advocate vehicular cycling have been remarkably transparent about their motives and their reasons.

...

Vehicular cyclists seek to correct the errors of cyclist-inferiority, childish cycling to make cycling the best it can be in the modern city. Bicycle advocates seek to maintain and enlarge the cyclist-inferiority, childish cycling errors as part of their program to return American cities to the state of 1920.

Yep. Transparency ++

unfortunately most of the current studies of the efficacy of the Big Dig and resultant "improvements" in driving time are done by the very same people responsible for the funding, building and maintenance of the facilities and they are (surprise!) quite positive. However, for Boston residents who ride on the rebuilt roads daily the reality does not match those reports. In ideal conditions it is, indeed, faster to make some commutes- particularly to the airport. But it's highly inconsistent as evidenced by the drive I described in my post- and my wife's colleague referred to as normal. (7.15 miles in 55 minues at rush hour).

Yeah adding lanes to improve traffic... a "wonderful solution" that quickly shows obvious limitations. Locally I note that the 4 new added lanes to the 5/805 junction, cited as the Grand Onion (http://sandiegometro.com/2007/dec/sdscene4.php) by the local architectural group for "lack of sustainability" results in traffic moving at a whopping 10-20MPH during rush hour... oddly enough, about the same speed a skilled cyclist might maintain.