Stubby

I also would not push one bike type as the answer..... but....... the missing element in the US is the slow bike. Walk into all but a few select bike shops and you won't find practical everyday bikes. You will find a whole lot of sport bikes as in mountain bikes, single speed speedsters, racing bikes, and perhaps a few hybrids. Where are the chainguards, fenders, kick stands, racks, and integrated lighting systems? The stuff everyday bikers need to go about there business. I had to buy my bike via internet or go down to Chicago because there wasn't anything locally, and the city I live in is full of bike shops. There's something amiss with that.

I see a lot of old Raleigh and Schwinn three speeds with nice swept back handle bars around town. Still in use after decades hard use. Lots of folks with absurdly raised handlebars to try and get more upright. The bike industry in the US is asleep at the wheel.

Cyclaholic

40% of traffic on bicycles = nirvana!

We'd be a legitimate mode of transport as far as the rest of the non-cycling world is concerned. That would mean the end of the "but he just swerved" defense and the end of open season on cyclists.

In reality it will only happen if the world is so energy poor that personal transport will be the least of our problems. The incredibly deep depression with the accompanying unemployment and perhaps civil unrest that ensues will probably take the edge off the cycling. Because the world is mostly ignorant of peak oil it probably will happen in the not too distant future.

Boye

You're welcome! But we haven't quite reached 40% yet in Copenhagen. But if you join: one up!

idc

Maybe if they introduced something akin to the congestion charge in London, more cars would get off the roads, and cycling would become easier, and more people would bike in. I'm always wary of trying to force changes like that though.

I love the idea of an electrically assisted velomobile.

tjspiel

If I remember right in Amsterdam they took steps to make driving less appealing so that might be just what it takes.

As far as bikes go, I'm skeptical that making "slow" bikes more available is going to have much impact. We already have these in our city:

Right now for a $40 annual subscription you can ride them all you want. I think the normal price is about $60. Don't get me wrong. I think they're great and I have a subscription myself, but you don't really want to use them for trips longer than a few miles. That's not got going to get us anywhere near 40%.

Well also need bikes that can cover more ground in less time. That means better aerodynamics and yeah maybe electric assist. Part of me doesn't like the idea of reducing the human powered nature of it but when you think about it, the average personal vehicle in the US weighs almost 2 tons. Powering something that weighs 80 to 100 lbs. is a much better way to go even if part of that is done electrically.

AdamDZ

It's not going to happen. Biking in USA is and will remain (a) sport, (b) leisure/recreational activity and (c) transportation for poor and weird people.

Most immigrants who come to the US buy a car with the first money they earn. It's a status symbol, something they could never afford in their home countries and it's a step up in their lives. This is very visible in New York City at least. I live in a part of town with large Polish population, I see things, I hear things, I talk to people and I know for a fact that for lots of new Polish immigrants owning a nice car is a priority. Many will live in small apartments, work 70h a week and spend a significant chunk of their income on the car only so they can be seen driving it. They'd rather die than be seen riding a bicycle to work. That would be simply humiliating. From what I know this applies to most other immigrants within all other ethnic groups in NYC. Mind you, these people probably were riding bikes to work back home, they won't ride a bike in America, they came here to "better" their lives and most are not smart enough to know better.

Then, most Americans are too lazy, too spoiled to sweat on a bike on their way to work. Then, a large part of the population is simply too busy. My boss's wife works 60 miles from home, he needs to drop off two kids to two different schools before work, lucky for him both are in walking distance. If the schools were further apart he'd take a bus or drive. He's not physically able to ride an Xtracycle or haul a trailer with two kids. There is no way they can do this with bikes. He understands the benefits of cycling, the damage cars do to our planet, they own a Prius and do a lot of things that are good for the environment but that's a bout it. There are lots and lots families like that. And that's in Manhattan. Now what about people in suburbia and rural areas? Cycling as a utility is simply not a viable solution for most people.

Finally, majority of people are not educated well enough to understand and care about the environment, the politics and their own health. They don't even know where gas comes from. Face it, people like us are a tiny minority. We may be vocal but there are too few of us to make any significant change.

I have no idea what needs to happen for biking to be taken seriously and universally as a mode of transportation by the American society. Increased gas prices will simply force people to ride bikes, that's not the same as if they suddenly realized that biking is sustainable transportation and most will jump back into cars as soon as cheaper alternative fuels becomes available. And it would have to be like $8-$10 per gallon cause a "revolutionary" increase in bike commuting.

A 25% increase in bike commuting will easily overload existing bicycle lanes in NYC. And there is no way in hell we're getting more. Even as it is the DOT gets a lot s**t from car centric opposition for what they're doing now. And if gas gets that expensive, everything else will become expensive including putting down and modifying any infrastructure.

My guess is that in case of "catastrophic" gas price increases the oil industry and the Republicans will do anything in their power to start drilling in the protected areas of USA rather than allow investments in new technologies and energy sources. Most likely this will end up being the biggest crisis in US history with people being broke, infrastructure deteriorating and politicians locked in slow, prolonged arguments about what to do while corporate interests will attempt to cash in and grab control as much as possible.

I am very anti-corporate type but I believe that if any real "transpiration revolution" occurs it'll come from the private sector, not the government: new fuels, new energy, new engines will originate purely as "new business" rather than something mandated by the feds. Our govt is too inept, full of dumb people with no vision beyond their bank accounts and the red tape is crippling. This is scary, I'd much rather have a proactive, open minded government with a vision than corporate interest leading the way.

Adam

dynodonn 

It would be nice if it meant reducing motor vehicle traffic by 40 percent. Too bad it's not a realistic goal here in the US, whatever the power source, the automobile will still be the number one transportation choice in the US, five years hence.

JPprivate

Did you just call me weird??

But I think you pretty much covered it. But wouldnt it be nice?

pallen

No it will never happen, and if it happened overnight, it would be complete chaos. If it happened over a period of a couple of years, it would be great. Cleaner air, the roads would be clear of congestion (bikes take up a lot less space than cars), people would be more fit, healthcare costs would drop. The results would be huge.

c3hamby

It will be well before 20, probably in the next few years. How much are people willing to pay for gas? This is going to be the deciding factor-unless some new technology comes out that replaces gasoline.

Local bike shops in Austin, TX are seeing a surge in bike sales with the relatively small increase in the price of gas compared to what is anticipated. All indications put it at $5/gallon before the end of the year.

Austin is committed to encouraging cycling. Many bike lanes have been created in the last few months and we are either working on our no cars allowed street, it may even already be operating.

tjspiel

AdamDZ:

Yes, a large scale switch to bicycles for commuting has to overcome more than just practical barriers, there's huge cultural barriers too. For me growing up, getting a car was a right of passage. But culture can and does change. Realistically I can't envision anything close to 40% anywhere in the U.S. in my lifetime. It would take something catastrophic and would probably never really make sense for even half the commuting population. I think some cities could achieve 10% though, maybe even 20%.

We've hired a bunch of younger talent at our office in the last 24 months. Several of them ride to work, among them are those who I think others look up to. It's not just us "weirdos" . Plus the city is working very hard to make cycling an integral part of its identity. So there is a shift.

As far as the suburbs go it's trickier, but there is a change in attitude if nothing else. A lot of my extended family and friends live in the suburbs. When I used to talk about biking into work, the reaction I got was disbelief more often than anything else. Now it's often: "I wish I could do that".

Every person added to the cycling population adds legitimacy to it for the people they come in contact with. Well, unless they really are weirdos.

Edit: Something else that just occurred to me that might hit home with your immigrant acquaintances though it might take a generation or so. As attractive as the American lifestyle is, it's not very healthy and I think we'll soon be faced with a shrinking life expectancy in this country.

My mom died at 80. Not so bad except when you realize that both her parents outlived her by quite a few years and were active and healthy into their early 80's (mid 80's in the case of my grandfather, he lived to be 92). My mom started downhill in her early 70's and was pretty much disabled by the time she was 75. And my Mom was the healthy one among she and her 5 siblings. They all died younger than their parents, save one who is still alive and may make it as long as my Grandmother did, but his health has been poor for the last decade at least. There's no doubt in my mind that if my mother were less sedentary she'd still be here today and very possibly thriving.

JeffS

Of course I would. And for those worried about "infrastructure". 40% bikes consumes a lot less infrastructure than their car equivalent.

You realize that long before we reached this mythical 40% participation, traffic laws would have been adjusted to accommodate it.

ItsJustMe

We probably all agree that 40% of all people commuting on any given day would be unrealistic in the US, but what if 40% of people did commute or at least ride their bike for non-recreational purposes (errands, etc) at some point in the course of the average month?

I think that would be huge. It would mean that absolutely everyone would either be a commuter, have several in their family or several among their friends. The amount of difference this would be likely to make to the attitude of the average car driver to cyclists would be drastic. If any given cyclists might be a friend, coworker or family member, who's going to give them hassles?

ItsJustMe

Well, infrastructure would have to be altered. I'm not sure why traffic law would have to change though. It already makes pretty good sense.

There are areas where some changes like bike boxes and dedicated bike traffic lights would improve flow with that number of riders.

tjspiel

That's far more realistic. Even in the suburbs I think there's a push to make communities more walkable (i.e. mix retail, public, and residential areas). So while you may not be able to ride to work, at least you could ride to a store, school, or restaurant.

Stubby

A good example of how to get folks out of cars and onto bikes and walking. With good infrastructure that gives equal play to all parties bike and pedestrian traffic increases and you get a more livable city. Who knew!!!!!!

https://www.streetfilms.org/complete-...st-bike-lanes/

AdamDZ

I enjoy being weird

Often I wonder about that though. Considering that I believe that people are stupid and selfish in general, regardless of their mode of transportation, an increased number of people on bikes might not turn out to be the kind of blessing we hope for Already, I see so many idiots on bikes that are worse than cars to deal with. I stopped using most bike lanes in Manhattan and prefer to ride with the traffic.

I agree that more and more people ride bikes to work and for utility these days but out of choice, not necessity. From my observations I'd say it's mostly educated and/or open-minded people: young professionals, students, it's also very common among scientists and the artsy types of all ages. The kind of people who live "alternative lifestyles". The kind of people who are opened to environmental issues and oppose the mainstream; and "the car" is mainstream. Even with a significant cultural shift USA will never see such percentage of biking population as other countries around the world because "the car" is such an integral part of USA culture. Route 66 anyone? I've never heard about a highway being a glorified cultural icon in Europe. Even if the number of people riding to work quadruples in a year, it'll still be a drop in the ocean compared to people driving to work.

There are practical and physical barriers due to sheer distances people have to cover in suburbian and rural areas. In dense urban setting, such as New York City bike is actually much faster than anything else, because of the gridlock traffic and crippled mass transit, for most rides under 10 miles (my personal estimate). So it makes sense and it's an additional incentive. In the suburbs, with lower traffic density and greater distances driving is much faster than riding a bike. Biking to work would really require dedication and better physical abilities.

I absolutely agree. I was there! I bought a used car in my second year and was ecstatic. I was like 23 years old. I'm not sure if you ever read or remember any of my "life stories" but I didn't bike since I came to USA until I was in my early 30s, about 10 years. And mind you: back in Poland I grew up practically on a bike. I got so caught up in work and blinded by the American Dream that I succumbed to it entirely. I tried skating and I hated it and I traded my skates for a used Huffy and it was an eye opener. "Why did I stop biking?" I thought to myself. Around that time I started waking up as well from the American Dream like from a hypnosis-induced sleep. I realized this was wrong, it didn't add up. Unfortunately, it took me years to fully realize that cars, houses and big screen TVs don't make people happy.

The children of these immigrants and younger people coming to the USA these days seem to be more open minded and some seem to be free of the American Dream nonsense.

So yeah, the car-dependence may eventually slowly regress, but it will take generations probably and it will never be complete.

True. But these numbers would need to increase significantly to make any real difference and many cyclists are still perceived as weird no matter what we do.

Anyone doing anything that is not mainstream will be considered strange by most of the shee... um people. Some of us actually become isolated and appear to be socially impaired because, like any minority, we're used to being ridiculed and attacked and we learned to avoid confrontations or even discussing our favorite mode of transportation in fear of another conflict.

Some cyclists are the opposite: too vocal and preachy, too self-righteous, "Viva la Revolution!" kind of people.

A large, very visible chunk of cyclists in NYC, for example, are hipsters and few other subcultures who are seen by "normal people" as rebels, vagrants, losers because of their rejection of the mainstream, so that doesn't help cycling either. It further makes people think that cycling is for weird people. For me a fat dude with gold chains in an SUV driving 3 miles to work with subwoofers blasting is an order of magnitude weirder than a hipster on a fixie.

If it's not in TV commercials it is not "normal". And I don't remember seeing any commercials encouraging people to bike to work.

So I'm being cautiously optimistic, and I don't hold my breath

Ediblestarfish

I'd be happy if at least 40% tried to bike to work at least once, but I would not be happy if 40% consistently did so. At least for most of the US, that seems beyond the threshold for practicality considering the lack of key infrastructure components to make it an easy and obvious choice.

Short of city centers and more dense urban areas, everything is so spread out that with limited time, it's damn near impossible to walk, highly questionable to bike. If you actually get somewhere on bike, there's very limited places to park it. It will never be more than a niche mode of transportation unless major changes happen to make it an easy and obvious choice.

Given that we have nearly the whole country brought up and built up on the dependency of the automobile, I don't think it will happen in my lifetime. The cost to rebuild everything around such a limited mode of transport makes no sense to me.

I'd be far happier when automated cars and trucks happen on a large scale. They could be wholly optimized to fuel efficiency and utility more easily than a car built around a human driver. They could park themselves, give elderly, young, and the driving ambivalent the transportation they need without needing any real skill or attention to operate. Hopefully it will allow for more biking infrastructure for those that choose to use it.

cyanemi

320 people no problem

BattleRabbit

The city I go to school in has about 100,000 people(regular population, when the 5 colleges are in session it's closer to 160,000). If 15% biked that would be huge. Most drive or walk.

The town my parents live in has like 70k people. I have only encountered one other cycle commuter ever. Swelling to 30k people would destroy the infrastructure of the town.

I have it good, I work in a warehouse and can keep my bike inside all the time. For that matter the other 19 people I work with could too and it wouldn't really get in the way of anything. Most of us live within like 10 miles, so it wouldn't be that impractical either. My commute is only 8-12 minutes longer by bike than by car. Of the 20 people I work with about 7 are cyclists of some kind. I'm the only commuter though.

gerv 

Holland has about 25%.... so I'm thinking the 40% problem won't be an issue for a while.

Seems like the best US city is around 3.5%
https://bikecommutetips.blogspot.com/...-for-bike.html

shouldberiding

Sounds like you're not seeing the big picture here. Also, reacting to perceived elitism with another form of elitism doesn't do much for your cause.

When I'm riding slower than the rest of the traffic, car or bicycle, I keep my ass to the right so other people can pass me. I have the privilege of riding in the street, but this does not entitle me to be an inconsiderate twit.

Do you think motoring infrastructure is built so that everybody can piddle along at whichever speed they please? No. It is designed with speed and efficiency in mind. Just as there are higher speed and lower speed motorways, there also need to be provisions for cyclists of different abilities if we're going to talk about 40% of all people jumping on a bike.

If a motorist does not keep up with the flow of traffic, that's called obstructing traffic. It's illegal, and it's a jerk thing to do. It shows a lack of thoughtfulness for those around you. I see this type of thing now with recreational walkers on the MUP. They walk four abreast, with little care for who might be trying to pass, or for traffic coming in the opposite direction. You almost need to roll right up and smack them upside the head to get them to move over, for all the good shouting, "On your left!" does.

With 40% of the local population flooding the paths and streets, it would be a nightmare. Putting jerks in cars on bicycles instead is no improvement. Do we need more a-holes chatting on cellphones running into people, except on the bike path instead? No.

I don't know about where you live, but bike paths are painted just like motorways. There are lane markings and stop signs. Does anyone pay attention to these things? No, of course not.

Taking nearly half of all drivers and putting them on bicycles would require a massive change in how people think about cycling. Bikes are vehicles, and bicyclists are responsible for acting according to traffic laws. With that many additional bicyclists, I'd say going so far as to require licensing would be necessary before operating a bicycle on a motorway. Perhaps not a "road test" like with a car, but at the very least a written test on traffic laws and safety. Not only that, but seriously cracking down on cyclists ignoring traffic laws. You'd need more police on bicycles maintaining order.

I think some of you are confused about what the OP is asking. It's not a 40% increase in cycling, it's taking 40% of the local population and putting them on bicycles. That's an increase of several thousand percent on the demands of cycling specific and motorway infrastructure. That means $$$. Lots of it. New bike paths, bike lanes. Streets needing to be widened or otherwise restructured to accommodate bicycle traffic. You can't just say, "To the streets!" like hundreds or thousands of cyclists wouldn't be in the way. Even if the number of drivers were reduced 40%, that's still a LOT of cars. Hell, that's probably the kind of demand the roadways were designed for years ago. One could argue that cities would save money in the long run with reduced wear and tear on the motorways, but show me a municipality that isn't behind on repaving road surfaces. Nobody has the budget for it.

It surprises me that some of you don't realize what a massive undertaking something like this would be. Even if the money for restructuring were a given, this whole hypothesis would hinge on expecting human beings to be respectful and responsible operating a vehicle that is largely viewed as a toy.

JPprivate

Again, I don't know where you live, but I really have to tell you that's not at all what I would see happening. If 40% of motorists would switch to bicycles, the streets would be deserted compared to what they are now. Bikes use a fraction of the space cars do, streets would not have to be widened, they could be narrowed, rather. The demand on roadways would drop radically. The savings would be enormous. On streets I see massive potholes each spring around here, not so on bike paths, I suspect that's because of the weight difference of the vehicles traveling on streets vs bike paths.

Also, I prefer jerks on bikes over jerks in cars any day.

Stubby

I agree, and barring some type of major disaster it would take years.

There is also a misunderstanding of what the slow bike movement is about. It's certainly not an elitist movement. Quite the opposite. At the moment in the US when folks think about bikes they think of it as a sporty thing. You have to be in shape, or wanting to get in shape, get special clothes, shoes, helmet (which simply implies that biking is dangerous, which it isn't compared to driving), etc. Slow bikes are simply bikes for everyday use by your average slightly, or not so slightly, overweight middle aged, or any age, folks, in everyday clothes and shoes and hats. No lycra or clipless peddles needed. Or even a helmet.

For decades the bike industry has been pushing bikes as a sporting good. f you want to actually get more people on bikes we need to stop pushing that idea, or at least pushing that idea exclusively at the expense of the more practical side of bikes. The bike industry need to carry more practical bikes. The ones with fenders, racks, lights, kick stands, chain guards, and all the other goodies.

If someone wants to use a bike as a sporting thing I have no problems. I just wonder why some folks are feeling threatened by seeing more slightly out of shape smiling folks in the saddle.

cyclist5

It would have it's pros and cons, having read about half the responses to this thread so far. Assuming the infrastructure was in place it might not be a bad thing. The weather being nicer now I've seen a huge number of cyclists more on the streets. This has caused all sorts of problems downtown as the majority of them ride on sidewalks or against the flow of traffic. It seems the only people following the rules are the guys/gals in lycra. Parking would also be a problem. Most parking garages have hundreds of spots, no? Well the bike racks next to them can hold probably 10 bikes.

So you need the following infrastructure to improve bikeability:
-Stricter enforcement of laws for both cyclists and drivers. If that means a $50 ticket for riding on the sidewalk so be it.
-Better education for drivers and a mandatory exam for cycling. If cyclists have a right to the road they have a right to take a bloody exam. Half the near-misses I have are because of other cyclists.
-Higher taxes to pay for improving the roads for mass cycling and better sensors on traffic lights.
-Bicycle-only expressways. Some have mentioned noobies slowing us down. Like in highways. There should be a "left-lane" for cyclists.
-Better mass-transit systems that can carry bikes.

An issue I've noticed is that cars at least flow with traffic. staying in generally straight lines when they drive. Cyclists weave in and out and slow down and go against the flow of traffic (i'm thinking parks here and the eclectic areas of the city). I would hate the idea of more cyclists just because cars I can at least from experience know what they will do. Some jo-shmo who started riding a bike because gas is too high and did not follow the rules would probably piss me off more than being buzzed by a F150

After all this I suppose that an extra 150000 people in Louisville biking would be ok.