surreal

I think she makes some sense EDIT** no, a lot of sense**--here. Where I disagree with Elly has more to do with some of the bike-specific infrastructure that she champions; I'm not a bikelane guy and I'm certainly not a separate bikeways guy; this is the type of thing I'm comfortable disagreeing with ppl about. I think it's a debate worth having, even if I think I'm right... I also read an overtly sexist article once, where she claimed that males shouldn't accompany females to the lbs b/c we mess it up by being manly.

But, yes, absolutely, I think "we", as ppl, ought to question the lifestyle we've been manipulated (and arguably coerced) into living. Transportation will always play a huge role in any discussion or consideration of that topic... but there are other factors to consider, as well, in my view.

Hoshnasi

One of the very first sentences from the interview is her denegrating a whole political group.

I always kind of chuckle when people use "Think Tanks", "Big Business" or "Big Oil" etc. to de-humanize the opinions of people that may differ from your point.

The reality is Conservative "Think Tanks" don't mind people privately creating a bike share program on their own dime. What they oppose is wasteful spending that never nets a return larger than the cost. Example, Citibike.

Elly is firmly a believer in grabbing the public cash for her passions.

How about she puts her butt on the line and creates her own bike share or bike kitchen.

GodsBassist

Bike infrastructure DOES net a return larger than the cost.

#carsneverdo

Hoshnasi

I've never paid to ride the MUP to work, or the bikeways. Where is the return coming from to upkeep?

GodsBassist

Is this an honest question? Cycling leads the people who use them to lower rates of depression, diabetes, some types of cancer, obesity, heart disease and increases productivity at work. Sections of town with bike lanes also report higher sales volumes after they are installed, increasing the amount of taxes collected from both sales and property taxes. Those who cycle also utilize less car infrastructure in exchange for more cycling infrastructure, but the trade off is something like 20 to 1. These things literally pay for themselves. Cities aren't scrambling to put them in because of the environment...

Hoshnasi

So in short term, no return on investment ($$$) large enough to recoup expenses. In the long-term, you can't guarantee the nirvana you described above would even happen within the society to make it profitable. If NY, OR or the other states/cities mentioned in this post and article are a clue, not nearly enough people will be riding to make this remotely cost even in ten, heck even fifty years.

GodsBassist

Yes. Other than reduced illness, increased productivity, more taxes and cheaper infrastructure there are almost no financial benefits.

Hoshnasi

Which won't happen as the numbers don't prove a substantial number of people have taken to riding, so the infrastructure cost will never be recouped.

B. Carfree

Nor do you directly pay to drive down the street. However, you did pay for both that MUP and that surface street to be installed and maintained, mostly with property, sales and income taxes. The macroeconomic return on public investment in transportation infrastructure is too obvious to bother listing.

GodsBassist

And yet….

https://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pu...ll_handy10.pdf

Hoshnasi

Laughable. You found a link that also says "If you build it, they will come." Yet it lacks ANYTHING of objective evidence that it will happen in appreciable numbers over a realistic time to be worthwhile in the first place and not just another taxpayer money hole.

Table 5 for example hand out a lot of Kool-aid and NEVER covers how much that % increase in the populace riding cost the tax payers.

Hoshnasi

Let me step back a second. I love my mup. I'm not saying "Infrastructure is bad". I'm saying "We need to be more objective on cost and pretending a biking boom will result in more infrastructure." There is no evidence of this don't kill the messenger that points it out.

Roody

Elly Blue and many others are saying that the main reason mor people don't ride is that the current infrastructure does nothing to support safe, pleasant, and convenient cycling. The current infrastructure is overwhelmingly designed to be useful ONLY for cars, so naturally only cars seem useful.

If there were adequate bike infrastructure, more people would choose to ride bikes. Why? Because bike riding is cheap, healthful, good for the environment, and fun. This would make good financial sense for taxpayers who would benefit from riding bikes.

Roody

I enjoy riding bikes. You probably do also. I think more bike riding would be a benefit to me, to other individuals, and to society. Maybe you agree. If so, it makes sense for us to try for a bigger piece of the pie.


Personally, I'm not asking to have taxes raised to pay for bike friendly infrastructure. Hear that? No new taxes! I just want a slightly bigger piece of the existing pie. I would be happy if five percent of current transportation funding were to go to bicycles facilities. This isn't that much of a change, but it would be a good deal for cyclists and potential cyclists.

Roody

There is much evidence that when good bike infrastructure is installed, bike use increases in the region. Like Copenhagen and Chicago and Minneapolis.

Roody

If you love MUPs, you have a right to fight for funding, with or without "evidence". In a participatory democracy, you can try to get government to fund anything and everything that you like.

Hoshnasi

How many people? And at what point is it worth throwing public money at? Society has to change before any gov. spending would be worth it.

Whats the point of a bigger piece of pie when there aren't enough people to eat it? Listen to what I am saying, the infrastructure is MUCH more expensive than the amount of people it will encourage to ride.

A link was posted, one point increases on the general public was the average. That is not worth the money is what I am saying. I'd rather have less taxes than poor more money down the drain on bike lanes, etc.

I don't know if you think you're educating/enlightening me on this. I understand how our system work, I'm saying its mostly a losing option and doesn't create new cyclists like these "studies" try and make us believe.

Roody

I believe there is much good evidence that car use is declining and bike use is rising when good policies are put in place. Elly Blue, of all people, wrote a good article in the Utne Reader covering this:

https://www.utne.com/economy/car-free....aspx?PageId=3

I hope you'll take the time to read and comment. It isn't very long.

prathmann

I suspect that a more effective way to increase bicycle usage is to make the car infrastructure inconvenient and expensive. I certainly found driving in both Copenhagen and Amsterdam to be very frustrating. Parking was scarce in some areas and quite expensive elsewhere. And the road designs kept speeds down and resulted in lots of slow, stop-and-go, traffic situations. I can see why so many of the residents prefer to get around by bike.

Mobile 155

For me the problem is almost everything Elly is now saying was said when we were in the Bike Boom of the mid 70s. 40 years ago the number of adults riding bikes had a "higher" percentage per capita than it does today. Source the NBDA. Nationally we had about 1 percent using bicycles as transportation nationally. Today there is still about 1 percent using bikes as transportation nationally, source the US Census . https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acs-15.pdf Notice less than 1 percent ride to work as of 2009.

while I might agree some cities seem to be doing better as a whole the nation seems to have stopped the unstoppable.

Oh and it isn't much better in Canada. it more or less flat lined between 2006 and 2012: " Finally, in 2011, 880,800 commuters walked to work (5.7%), and 201,800 cycled (1.3%). In the 2006 Census, 6.4% of commuters walked and 1.3% cycled." https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/...1003_1-eng.cfm

Ekdog

As I've pointed out before, the experience in my city with segregated bike lanes has been overwhelmingly positive. These lanes, along with a bike-share program, have been responsible for raising cycling modal share from around 1% to over 7% in a very short period of time. The key to our success lies in the fact that all 240 kilometers of our cycleways were built at the same and form a network.

A friend of mine who was closely involved in having the system built explained it like this:



“Political will is essential. Sometimes politicians want to check first if the idea works, for instance making one or two isolated bike paths before making a stronger decision. But isolated cycle paths are almost useless if they’re not connected, making a network from the beginning. Therefore people don’t use them and the politician becomes disappointed.”

I suspect part of the problem in the States may be that many of the lanes are isolated and don't form a network.

Roody

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.

Nightshade

While we all like to read stories about cycling it's a sad fact that they all are "preaching to the choir" when it comes to how effect any cycling story is with the general public.

The general public still sees bicycles as kids toys and not as serious transportation vehicles here in..........America.

Hoshnasi

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.

Hoshnasi

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.

I've said it before and I think a lot of others have also made the point that the issue isn't the bike lanes and in fact the bike lanes becomes almost an aggression point between motorists and the cyclists. "In but not of", if you get my drift. I've been yelled at for being on roads that didn't have bike lanes as though we have no been segregated to them.