Bike Forums

Bike Forums (http://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Living Car Free (http://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/)
-   -   "The Unstoppable Rise of Bikes" (interview with Elly Blue) (http://www.bikeforums.net/living-car-free/930870-unstoppable-rise-bikes-interview-elly-blue.html)

GodsBassist 01-27-14 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16445390)
I read the article and thanks for posting, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the idea and sentiment. However, I honed in on something there that speaks to what I am saying



In other words, Copenhagen has a dilemma. It's invested heavily in cycling and now that it is tapering off, they are throwing more money at the problem.

You can't get governments to not spend, they have a ridiculously difficult time doing nothing. In the case of infrastructure.
I'm advocating we not do much, we grow in step with the popularity of cycling, not try and smash it down the collective peoples throats via construction and high construction costs which will only yield at most a 1% increase in total population riding in 5-10 years.

I agree. $155 billion dollars was spent on highways last year. Since cycling only accounts for 1-ish percent of the modality we should restrict the spending to 1-ish percent, that's only $1.5 Billion dollars so we're not shoving anything down anybody's throats. To be fair though that will only build a few 100k miles of separated MUP, or a few million miles of sharrows.

Roody 01-27-14 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16445390)
I read the article and thanks for posting, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the idea and sentiment. However, I honed in on something there that speaks to what I am saying



In other words, Copenhagen has a dilemma. It's invested heavily in cycling and now that it is tapering off, they are throwing more money at the problem.

You can't get governments to not spend, they have a ridiculously difficult time doing nothing. In the case of infrastructure. I'm advocating we not do much, we grow in step with the popularity of cycling, not try and smash it down the collective peoples throats via construction and high construction costs which will only yield at most a 1% increase in total population riding in 5-10 years.

Cities have an amazing problem with traffic congestion that cripples economic growth, plagues public health, and deteriorates the quality of life. What solutions do you have that are cheap and that don't involve more bikes?

Hoshnasi 01-27-14 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GodsBassist (Post 16445489)
I agree. $155 billion dollars was spent on highways last year. Since cycling only accounts for 1-ish percent of the modality we should restrict the spending to 1-ish percent, that's only $1.5 Billion dollars so we're not shoving anything down anybody's throats. To be fair though that will only build a few 100k miles of separated MUP, or a few million miles of sharrows.

I'd say collectively, that is a states/city issue. Here in Ca. My city may not be worthy of a lions share to that % of funds, but there are other cities that have people ready and willing to partake in good infrastructure.

Or just give cyclists a tax cut so we can all go buy new bikes and gear, lol.

Hoshnasi 01-27-14 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16445491)
Cities have an amazing problem with traffic congestion that cripples economic growth, plagues public health, and deteriorates the quality of life. What solutions do you have that are cheap and that don't involve more bikes?

Google auto-drive. Congestion will become a thing of the past.

Seriously though, your question implies the issue needs a solution, or that the technology exists for there to be an adequate solution. Growth of population and desire to own/drive a car to work and everywhere else only grows and grows as the populace grows. Trying to control the desire or dissuade others from driving sounds pretty freedom-crushing. Moreover, putting money into alternative conveyance sounds like a waste.

In the short term, I'd try and privatize parts of what is the causing congestion, buses, toll roads, etc. Technological advancement in these areas will come from the private sector, not the government.

In the long term it's a case by case scenario.

Roody 01-27-14 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16445606)
Google auto-drive. Congestion will become a thing of the past.

Seriously though, your question implies the issue needs a solution, or that the technology exists for there to be an adequate solution. Growth of population and desire to own/drive a car to work and everywhere else only grows and grows as the populace grows. Trying to control the desire or dissuade others from driving sounds pretty freedom-crushing. Moreover, putting money into alternative conveyance sounds like a waste.

In the short term, I'd try and privatize parts of what is the causing congestion, buses, toll roads, etc. Technological advancement in these areas will come from the private sector, not the government.

In the long term it's a case by case scenario.

I'm not going to drink this kool-aid, which will only get the thread moved to P&R.

Hoshnasi 01-27-14 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16445634)
I'm not going to drink this kool-aid, which will only get the thread moved to P&R.

Fair enough, but you did ask the question.

Roody 01-27-14 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16445670)
Fair enough, but you did ask the question.

I don't think I asked the same question that you answered.

Hoshnasi 01-27-14 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16445491)
Cities have an amazing problem with traffic congestion that cripples economic growth, plagues public health, and deteriorates the quality of life. What solutions do you have that are cheap and that don't involve more bikes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16445696)
I don't think I asked the same question that you answered.

Do nothing is cheap, privatizing is cheap. Neither involve bikes.

Roody 01-27-14 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16445919)
Do nothing is cheap, privatizing is cheap. Neither involve bikes.

Okey doke.

Ekdog 01-28-14 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16445454)
Would it be possible for you to post some evidence of a 6% growth rate. Regardless of the country or city that is a very high return.

http://copenhagenize.eu/index/04.html

http://www.urbanalternatives.eu/urba...1_Sevilla.html

surreal 01-28-14 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16445919)
....privatizing is cheap...


:lol:Cheap for WHO?:thumb:

Hoshnasi 01-28-14 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surreal (Post 16447052)
:lol:Cheap for WHO?:thumb:

Almost everyone. :thumb:

Roody 01-28-14 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16447972)
Almost everyone. :thumb:

To quote you, would it be possible to post some evidence?

surreal 01-28-14 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16447972)
Almost everyone. :thumb:

Yeah, like with healthcare, right? Good one.

Mobile 155 01-28-14 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16443678)
Yes, they put in crappy bike lanes and of course nobody rides on them. And that, they claim, "proves" that bicycle facilities "don't work". It just flabbergasted me that a few people can still believe such obvious lies and nonsense from the automobile lobby.

Ok, lets assume that the auto lobby affects our perceptions. How do we justify the different demographics of users using the very same infrastructure? Lets say based on a Bicycling industry source?
http://www.gluskintownleygroup.com/d...w%20Report.pdf

These trends are about as new as I could find and they address, men, women, children and ethnicity.

How unstoppable does this trend make Elly's contention?:rolleyes:

gerv 01-28-14 07:43 PM

Hey is anyone actually read this book? I've made it to page 30 and like what I'm reading. I could probably have gleaned most of her arguments by lurking on LCF though. :)

Hoshnasi 01-28-14 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by surreal (Post 16448242)
Yeah, like with healthcare, right? Good one.

Implying the healthcare system is truly private is naive. :thumb:

Roody 01-28-14 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoshnasi (Post 16449142)
Implying the healthcare system is truly private is naive. :thumb:

The highway system, which is what we are discussing, is not private either. The only privatization of a public road that I know about was an experiment in Michigan that lasted for several years. A private company (ABC Paving) was low bidder to maintain about 20 miles of an urban interstate extension (I-496) in Lansing. ABC Paving charged the state $15,000 per mile. The state DOT reported that they could do it for $8,100, while the county road commission said it would cost them only $7,100. The contract with ABC Paving was not renewed.

Newspaper article:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=5032,3708735

Report from a right wing think tank:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/M-DOT+...ved-a019925500

Hoshnasi 01-28-14 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roody (Post 16449177)
The highway system, which is what we are discussing, is not private either. The only privatization of a public road that I know about was an experiment in Michigan that lasted for several years. A private company (ABC Paving) was low bidder to maintain about 20 miles of an urban interstate extension (I-496) in Lansing. ABC Paving charged the state $15,000 per mile. The state DOT reported that they could do it for $8,100, while the county road commission said it would cost them only $7,100. The contract with ABC Paving was not renewed.

Newspaper article:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=5032,3708735

Report from a right wing think tank:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/M-DOT+...ved-a019925500


We do it here in LA, Orange and Riverside county. They offer "fast track" toll lanes to bypass the public traffic at a cost, which covers their expenses.

Also, I think its sort of appealing to tradition or authority to say that something won't work or shouldn't be preferred because one failed attempt or that because the institutions which has largely been stagnant may right now be cheaper in again, this particular situation.

I'll try to get to common ground with this though. I think Citibike is a step in the right direction. It's almost entirely funded privately and has city oversight. I'm not sure how much "oversight" and I hope over time it is reduced and not increased to keep the bikes rolling cheaply.

I'm also a huge fan of not-for-profit or privately owned for profit bike kitchens, like here in LA.

lasauge 01-29-14 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobile 155 (Post 16448709)
http://www.gluskintownleygroup.com/d...w%20Report.pdf

How unstoppable does this trend make Elly's contention?:rolleyes:

Aside from the differences of purpose, I don't think the the author of that paper and Elly would find all that much to disagree about except for the sources of their numbers. He comes to similar conclusion, that the biggest factor hindering the growth of cycling in the US is the built environment of our cities:

Quote:

In this environment, the most pressing issue for bicycle stores and suppliers is holding on to loyal customers for as long as possible. But that alone is not enough. The bicycle industry must also seek growth by attracting women back to the sport, and by finding ways to put Hispanic, black, and Asian families on bikes. Women are far more sensitive to safety issues than men are, and more of their daily transportation needs revolve around family activities and shopping. Most of the children in America’s largest cities and states are black, Hispanic, Asian, or from some other non-white race. For this reason, the single best way to attract women and minorities to bicycling is making urban and suburban streets safer and more cycle-friendly.

Mobile 155 01-29-14 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lasauge (Post 16449222)
Aside from the differences of purpose, I don't think the the author of that paper and Elly would find all that much to disagree about except for the sources of their numbers. He comes to similar conclusion, that the biggest factor hindering the growth of cycling in the US is the built environment of our cities:

Maybe true, however for some reason the lack of infrastructure seems to effect one group less than others. Specifically if it weren't for older white males the unstoppable would be considered stopped in the US.

The he question was asked if we didn't see an increase in cycling in the US and the numbers indicate only white males have remained constant. Females, children
and all minority males have decresed using the same infrastructure. So it seems it is a force of will not simply build it and they will come. And it also answers the question of if we see more cyclists on the road in general. Nationally the answer is no. And according to the NBDA the percentages of adults bikes sold has still not reached the 1973 levels. So with the massive decrease in bicycle use in China and the decrease in all but one portion of the US population it looks like the "Unstoppable" is stoppable. At least statistacaly.

Roody 01-29-14 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobile 155 (Post 16449755)
Maybe true, however for some reason the lack of infrastructure seems to effect one group less than others. Specifically if it weren't for older white males the unstoppable would be considered stopped in the US.

The he question was asked if we didn't see an increase in cycling in the US and the numbers indicate only white males have remained constant. Females, children
and all minority males have decresed using the same infrastructure. So it seems it is a force of will not simply build it and they will come. And it also answers the question of if we see more cyclists on the road in general. Nationally the answer is no. And according to the NBDA the percentages of adults bikes sold has still not reached the 1973 levels. So with the massive decrease in bicycle use in China and the decrease in all but one portion of the US population it looks like the "Unstoppable" is stoppable. At least statistacaly.

I don't care what these figures say. My own eyes see more cyclists today. Many of them are not white and most of them did not buy a bike from a member of NBDA. Most did not buy a new bike at all, but a used one. Most of these new cyclists are riding on the sidewalks or side streets, presumably because they perceive the main streets to be too dangerous. I doubt if very many were asked to participate in a survey about their cycling habits.

GodsBassist 01-29-14 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mobile 155 (Post 16449755)
Maybe true, however for some reason the lack of infrastructure seems to effect one group less than others. Specifically if it weren't for older white males the unstoppable would be considered stopped in the US.

The he question was asked if we didn't see an increase in cycling in the US and the numbers indicate only white males have remained constant. Females, children
and all minority males have decresed using the same infrastructure. So it seems it is a force of will not simply build it and they will come. And it also answers the question of if we see more cyclists on the road in general. Nationally the answer is no. And according to the NBDA the percentages of adults bikes sold has still not reached the 1973 levels. So with the massive decrease in bicycle use in China and the decrease in all but one portion of the US population it looks like the "Unstoppable" is stoppable. At least statistacaly.

I'm not sure where you got your demographic statistics for cyclists, but they are incorrect. Between 2001 and 2009 blacks went from 8 to 10 percent of trips accounted for and hispanics from 6 to 8. Women are also taking a larger share of the bike demographic because of new bike infrastructure, most prominently bike share systems. This has been documented by the league of American bicyclists and is covered (albeit anecdotally) by Elly Blue in her book as she references the fact that more advocacy groups are being attended and lead by women.

The 60 percent increase in cycling throughout the country since 2000 has been across the board demographically, but women and minorities have contributed more to that increase than white males.

http://www.bikeleague.org/content/ac...continues-rise

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/...sc=tw&cc=share

Ekdog 01-30-14 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerv (Post 16448711)
Hey is anyone actually read this book? I've made it to page 30 and like what I'm reading. I could probably have gleaned most of her arguments by lurking on LCF though. :)

There doesn't seem to be a Kindle version available. I went to Amazon and accidentally ordered a 26-page "zine" with the same title. I've cancelled that as I wanted to read the whole book. Oh, well...

Mobile 155 01-30-14 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GodsBassist (Post 16451319)
I'm not sure where you got your demographic statistics for cyclists, but they are incorrect. Between 2001 and 2009 blacks went from 8 to 10 percent of trips accounted for and hispanics from 6 to 8. Women are also taking a larger share of the bike demographic because of new bike infrastructure, most prominently bike share systems. This has been documented by the league of American bicyclists and is covered (albeit anecdotally) by Elly Blue in her book as she references the fact that more advocacy groups are being attended and lead by women.

The 60 percent increase in cycling throughout the country since 2000 has been across the board demographically, but women and minorities have contributed more to that increase than white males.

http://www.bikeleague.org/content/ac...continues-rise

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/...sc=tw&cc=share

Then you didn't follow any of my links.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:40 AM.