want more bicyclists .... add bike lanes

[hagen2456]

See, but I wasn't. This isn't just a choice of wind or hills. A lot of areas have both to deal with.

I think the areas that have a large share of bike travel are areas where most of the trips are less then 3 miles. This would include European villages (that are not typical in the U.S. where many areas were developed after the advent of the car) and dense cities.

(Sigh) For the USA: "25 percent of all trips are made within a mile of the home, 40 percent of all trips are within two miles of the home, and 50 percent of the working population commutes five miles or less to work". Alas, all of them against the wind, uphill. Or is it most of them? Or what are you trying to tell us? Give up, man, your position is totally untenable.

Etc. ad nauseam.

[John Forester]

I am willing to bet that no one comes up with an example of a high bicycle modal share area with little to no bike infrastructure. I mean that would be like showing an area high in bicycle modal share that uses only vehicular cycling... no such place exists.

Holland and Denmark before bikeways, for example. And others have offered the examples of small towns and college towns.

But more than that, Genec assumes that the absence of bikeways means that vehicular cycling is done. That was never, and still is not, true for America. American governments have tried to suppress vehicular cycling since about 1940, with the result of raising a population of incompetent and lawless cyclists.

[noisebeam]

I think a better way to get more people cycling is thru a public transport network that smoothy and easily integrates with cycling transport.

[genec]

Holland and Denmark before bikeways, for example. And others have offered the examples of small towns and college towns.

But more than that, Genec assumes that the absence of bikeways means that vehicular cycling is done. That was never, and still is not, true for America. American governments have tried to suppress vehicular cycling since about 1940, with the result of raising a population of incompetent and lawless cyclists.

And what sort of modal share was cycling in Holland and Denmark before bikeways... compared to what it is today?

And no I don't assume that vehicular cycling was done... again you show a reading problem... as I stated in post 74... "stay to the side out of he way of cars." I assumed gutter cycling.

[genec]

I think a better way to get more people cycling is thru a public transport network that smoothy and easily integrates with cycling transport.

+1000. You mean a transportation network... not just a maze of unconnected paths, lanes and trails... Oh my what a concept. GRIN.

Indeed you are right. However in the US, the notion is as foreign as speaking French... as ""nobody walks in LA," is a long held belief apparently of transportation planners... buses and trains are for the down trodden (except in the DC/NYC corridor), the trolley is for domestic help, and only fools ride bikes... and bikes are toys. "Everyone dahling, has a car..."

[hagen2456]

Holland and Denmark before bikeways, for example. And others have offered the examples of small towns and college towns.

Sure, and with ever more car traffic, biking in Holland and Denmark became ever more dangerous without bike facilities, and bike commuting decreased. With bike facilities being implemented, more people started biking (again).

But we've been over this ground before, and having to deal with your daydreams is getting rather boring.

[weshigh]

Holland and Denmark before bikeways, for example. And others have offered the examples of small towns and college towns.

But more than that, Genec assumes that the absence of bikeways means that vehicular cycling is done. That was never, and still is not, true for America. American governments have tried to suppress vehicular cycling since about 1940, with the result of raising a population of incompetent and lawless cyclists.

So there is no modern day example of a city that has the numbers like in Holland and Denmark that has little to no bike infrastructure?

[hagen2456]

So there is no modern day example of a city that has the numbers like in Holland and Denmark that has little to no bike infrastructure?

No - and the Dutch and Danish cities with high numbers back in the 40's and early 50's didn't have car traffic on a scale that is in any way comparable to today's.

[genec]

Sure, and with ever more car traffic, biking in Holland and Denmark became ever more dangerous without bike facilities, and bike commuting decreased. With bike facilities being implemented, more people started biking (again).

But we've been over this ground before, and having to deal with your daydreams is getting rather boring.

He keeps imagining the world as 1940 England... with few cars, dim lighting, and the masses scooting about on bicycles in bowler hats and tweed.

Multi-laned wide, fast arterial roads filled with climate controlled cars and distracted drivers fiddling with various wireless entertainment devices just don't make his reality.

Eventually when robots drive cars and strictly adhere to the rules of the road, vehicular cycling will rise again... but until then...

[Doohickie]

(Sigh) For the USA: "25 percent of all trips are made within a mile of the home, 40 percent of all trips are within two miles of the home, and 50 percent of the working population commutes five miles or less to work". Alas, all of them against the wind, uphill. Or is it most of them? Or what are you trying to tell us? Give up, man, your position is totally untenable.

Etc. ad nauseam.

For the USA: "75 percent of all trips are more than a mile from home, 60 percent of all trips are more than two miles from home, and 50 percent of the working population commutes more than five miles to work". Alas, all of them against the wind, uphill. Or is it most of them?

That is simply too many trips that are too long to go car free, especially for people who don't live in New York City, Chicago, Boston or San Francisco, where the population is much more dense. And every trip that is made is against the wind and uphill for half the trip.

[hagen2456]

Those numbers don't tell us anything in the present context. Mine do. You should realize that. Please apply a bit of formal logic.

(Besides, more than 50% of the US population is now living in cities, and half the bike trips in most cities with a lot of cyclists are against the wind and uphill for half the trip - but that should not distract us, of course)

[Doohickie]

Those numbers don't tell us anything in the present context. Mine do. You should realize that. Please apply a bit of formal logic.

Those numbers are just the very same numbers you presented, but I used the logical negative of yours, and 100% minus your percentages. If my numbers don't say anything, neither do yours. I *did* use formal logic. The following are logically equivalent:

Yours
25 percent of all trips are made within a mile of the home
is logically equivalent to mine
75 percent of all trips are more than a mile from home

Yours
40 percent of all trips are within two miles of the home
is logically equivalent to mine
60 percent of all trips are more than two miles from home

Yours
50 percent of the working population commutes five miles or less to work
is logically equivalent to mine
50 percent of the working population commutes more than five miles to work

[hagen2456]

Of course they're not equivalent. Check your "<"'s and ">"'s with reference to my original post about the numbers, and what they refer to. Or just read up on it.

This is silly, really.



edited to make statement clear.

[noisebeam]

As I was leaving work yesterday a man came up to me and said "I saw you leave the building and wanted to check if you really were riding in this heat (keep in mind it is only mid 90s so far)" How far, he asks? 11mi I say. 'Oh that is not too bad"

He said he commuted by bike every day until he moved here a few weeks ago and his commute was nearly 20mi each way and uphill, but he could just not ride in the heat. I asked if his commute was uphill both ways, he said "Well yes, in Portland everything is uphill"

[hagen2456]

As I was leaving work yesterday a man came up to me and said "I saw you leave the building and wanted to check if you really were riding in this heat (keep in mind it is only mid 90s so far)" How far, he asks? 11mi I say. 'Oh that is not too bad"

He said he commuted by bike every day until he moved here a few weeks ago and his commute was nearly 20mi each way and uphill, but he could just not ride in the heat. I asked if his commute was uphill both ways, he said "Well yes, in Portland everything is uphill"

Yet, 20 miles is for the dedicated cyclists, even in Holland and the rest of Europe. The distances that seem to be really interesting in this context are well within 10 miles, or perhaps even 5 miles. However, that still leaves you with a huge potential number of cyclists.

[noisebeam]

+1000. You mean a transportation network... not just a maze of unconnected paths, lanes and trails... Oh my what a concept. GRIN.

No, I meant a connected, reliable, efficient network of public transport. The cycling is to/from the stations where there is lots of secure bike parking. I would expect if any cycling infrastructure is needed it would connect to the public transport, but not necessarily completely to itself.

[CB HI]

You mean back when I learned to ride and "stay to the side out of he way of cars."

So is this vehicular cycling? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQgAMkMmsfg

So you were trained wrong. I never saw the monkey movie until posted on BFs. There were several bicycle riding movies more along VC lines that we watched in grade school. My kids learned VC riding in fourth grade from the Hawaii Bicycle League training originally set up by John.

Here is when Bek jumps in with some stupid comment about why ALL those kids are not ALL commuting by bicycle. Just like kids everywhere, now and in the 1960s, they enjoy being able to drive cars when they turn 16.

But one thing is for sure, I do not experience the JAM problems from young drivers that so many complain about. All my JAMs are too old to have taken the training. Too bad we cannot send them back to fourth grade for some re-education.

[CB HI]

Of course they're not equivalent. Check your "<"'s and ">"'s with reference to my original post about the numbers, and what they refer to. Or just read up on it.

This is silly, really.



edited to make statement clear.

Complete fail.

[rekmeyata]

interesting, but not really deep a couple of things to note, not clear which is better bike lanes or separate facilities both help. Sharrows don't count .


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...QQLT_blog.html

and here is the whole thing

http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/bikepaths.pdf

I use to live in area that had fantastic bike paths and lots of people used them, but most of the people that used them were students due to the University that was there, the other people that used them were people that could not afford cars due to expensive housing, then the rest were tourists. This was in Santa Barbara California. Most of California has a fairly active cycling culture, but once I moved out of the high rent communities of the coastal area of California very few people commuted to work, this became obvious when living in Bakersfield CA that had a very well thought out bike paths and lanes and yet I only occasionally saw a commuter on them, the majority of riders were recreational which there were a slew.

Then when I moved to Fort Wayne Indiana the cycling culture was all together different probably due to weather. The Fort has a decent bike path and lane system, though nothing as good as places I lived in California had, but I rarely see commuters on the paths, and in fact even the recreational riders are far and few between.

You could spend a billion dollars on bike paths and lanes in Fort Wayne Indiana and it would not make people more inclined to ride them either for commuting or recreational. I seriously doubt after spending a billion dollars that the new and improved bike path/lane system would increase bike traffic by more then 5%...not exactly a good return on the money spent. And I think that would be true in almost any city across America except maybe in more milder weather areas but those places already have great bike path infrastructures.

Sorry, but I think we shouldn't be wasting taxpayers money on projects like this till the government gets their fiscal house in order...yup, that probably means never. And besides, if taxes need to be raised a bit to get bicycle paths then put it the vote of the community considering it, not leave it up to politicians to decide.

Raising sales taxes by 1/2% could raise a lot of money for a county to build such projects, problem is who's going to police the government to make sure that 1/2% gets used only for bicycle infrastructure? And will the people of a county be willing to sacrifice 1/2% to do that knowing so very few people would benefit from it?

Maybe another answer is to charge a one time registration fee on all new bikes of lets say $25, or a percentage of the cost of the bike like 5% of the purchase price? then those who cycle pay to have what they want done, and people who can't afford expensive bikes pay less and those that can afford expensive bikes pay more. Also a registration could be easier to sell on the people if that registration would also be used to help with theft recovery of stolen bikes. Used bike sales would be excluded, or made voluntary if someone wanted the safety of the registration for theft recovery.

[Doohickie]

Complete fail.

I know. They are precisely logically equivalent.

Let's try it symbolically.

25% of trips < 1 mile from home
says the same thing logically as
(100-25)% of trips > 1 mile from home
says the same thing logically as
75% of trips > 1 mile from home

40% of trips < 2 miles from home
says the same thing logically as
(100-40)% of trips > 2 miles from home
says the same thing logically as
60% of trips > 2 miles from home

50% of workers commute < 5 miles
says the same thing logically as
(100-50)% of workers commute > 5 miles
says the same thing logically as
50% of workers commute > 5 miles

You do understand logical equivalency, don't you?

[genec]

No, I meant a connected, reliable, efficient network of public transport. The cycling is to/from the stations where there is lots of secure bike parking. I would expect if any cycling infrastructure is needed it would connect to the public transport, but not necessarily completely to itself.

OK but that too is missing in our nation of "everybody has a car" mentality. The fact is that no form of transportation is as well supported in this nation as the individual motor vehicle... even down to the fact of the 1956 Highway act.

Can you imagine a similar act for public transit (you know, like what used to exist before the car) or for cycling.

I see your point though... something like a hub and spoke network with bikes for "the last mile."

[hagen2456]

Between 2008 and 2009, cycling in New york increased by 26%, and by 14% between 2010 and 2011*. This seems to correlate nicely with the effort to install bike lanes.

*Those were the numbers a quick search gave. I don't know how authoritative they are.

[hagen2456]

I know. They are precisely logically equivalent.

Let's try it symbolically.

25% of trips < 1 mile from home
says the same thing logically as
(100-25)% of trips > 1 mile from home
says the same thing logically as
75% of trips > 1 mile from home

40% of trips < 2 miles from home
says the same thing logically as
(100-40)% of trips > 2 miles from home
says the same thing logically as
60% of trips > 2 miles from home

50% of workers commute < 5 miles
says the same thing logically as
(100-50)% of workers commute > 5 miles
says the same thing logically as
50% of workers commute > 5 miles

You do understand logical equivalency, don't you?

Now, come on, you don't mean to tell me that you didn't read this sentence:

"with reference to my original post about the numbers, and what they refer to"

do you?

That sentence actually carries a meaning: it refers to the bikeability of certain distances, and this should be incorporated in your set-up for it to correctly reflect what I said. Your reversal of the numbers does not, or to be more precise, cannot. Which makes it clear that in your effort to avoid admitting that you're wrong about cycling, commuting distances etc. etc., you simplify the issue, as well as pick on irrelevant details. Business as usual, I guess.

[Bekologist]

.......

Let's try it symbolically.


50% of workers commute < 5 miles
says the same thing logically as
(100-50)% of workers commute > 5 miles
says the same thing logically as
50% of workers commute > 5 miles



.....

Egads! If half of the american workforce commutes less than 5 miles to work, what's the problem?

this thread is primarily about a study showing a robust connection between miles of bikelane and path and the percent of bicycle commuting.

In cities that plan for bike traffic, more people ride to work.

[hagen2456]

Complete fail.

See post #98. Get it now?