Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety > Vehicular Cycling (VC)
Reload this Page >

What is 'Best Practice for Cyclists?'

Notices
Vehicular Cycling (VC) No other subject has polarized the A&S members like VC has. Here's a place to share, debate, and educate.

What is 'Best Practice for Cyclists?'

Old 10-12-09, 06:20 AM
  #26  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
boy, Randya.

when discussing 'best practice' design for bicycling some mention of facilites is inevitable. why call me at fault for discussing a topic at hand?

Best practices and safer bicycling facilities are actually central to the conversation aren't they?

you are aware VC is most emphatically NOT 'best practice' design for bicyclists by any metric. look at ridership in other countries, look at cycling rates by the elderly in countries that plan more considerately for bikes as transportation. compare to the USA and Britain.


griping that facilities are inseparable from discussion of 'best practices' and are part and parcel of 'best practice' design?

a huge inability to see reality for what it is.

are you just upset with cycletracks or something?

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 07:45 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 07:09 AM
  #27  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
Bek - What I think they are saying is don't be the John Forester of facilities, dude!

I'll bet we can have a rational discussion with Dan and pacificaslim without all the rhetoric. In fact, I'll bet we all ride more alike than different.



danarnold is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 07:31 AM
  #28  
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,079

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 86 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13658 Post(s)
Liked 4,532 Times in 3,158 Posts
Originally Posted by randya

I'll bet we can have a rational discussion with Dan and pacificaslim without all the rhetoric. In fact, I'll bet we all ride more alike than different.


I bet we do too.

But bear in mind that "our current riding style" has only resulted in an average cycling modal share of about 2% in most areas of the country. Places that emphasize "better practices for cyclists" have reached a modal share closer to 6%.

This report: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs...rpt_500v18.pdf outlines that walking and cycling together have a modal share of about 7%, and they strive to reach over 15%. That report outlines quite a few "better practices for cyclists."
genec is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 07:50 AM
  #29  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
you are aware VC is most emphatically NOT 'best practice' design for bicyclists by any metric.
I guess that depends upon if you mean VC the wacky dogma or vc the practical concept of operating according to the rules of the road...like even you do, Bek.
chipcom is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 07:50 AM
  #30  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by randya
I'll bet we can have a rational discussion with Dan and pacificaslim without all the rhetoric..
don't be so sure, randya. danarnold's a facts-lite idealogue that considers sprawl inevitable and a desired consequence of the american economic engine despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 07:54 AM
  #31  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
I bet we do too.

But bear in mind that "our current riding style" has only resulted in an average cycling modal share of about 2% in most areas of the country. Places that emphasize "better practices for cyclists" have reached a modal share closer to 6%.

This report: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs...rpt_500v18.pdf outlines that walking and cycling together have a modal share of about 7%, and they strive to reach over 15%. That report outlines quite a few "better practices for cyclists."
It's very difficult to demonstrate cause and effect here. More bicycling may have caused the emphasis on
"better practices for cyclists"

From vol. 18, I-2:

"Progress has been made on the two NBWS goals. The goal of reducing injuries and fatalities by
10 percent has been surpassed. The number of bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities decreased
by 18 percent from 1993 to 2003; bicyclist fatalities dropped by 23.3 percent. The number of
bicyclists injured in collisions with motor vehicles decreased by 35.3 percent over the same
time period (Raborn, 2004), but these decreases may reflect a downward trend in overall
bicycling as much as they indicate safety improvements.
Since 2003, however, these trends
have reversed: as of 2005, the decrease in bicyclist fatalities from 1993 had decreased to less
than 4 percent. So, progress has been made on reducing bicyclist injuries and fatalities,
but that progress appears now to be eroding.
The NBWS goal of doubling the percentage of walking and bicycling trips has not been
accomplished, although the number of trips increased and perhaps doubled. In 1990, there
were an estimated 1.7 billion bicycling trips; in 2001, that number had almost doubled to
3.3 billion. Combined walking and bicycling trip numbers increased from 19.7 billion to
38.6 billion. The percentage of bicycle trips, however, increased a mere one-tenth of a percent
(from 0.7 percent to 0.8 percent), while combined trips increased from 7.9 percent to 9.5 percent.
danarnold is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 07:56 AM
  #32  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
I guess that depends upon if you mean VC the wacky dogma or vc the practical concept of operating according to the rules of the road...like even you do, Bek.
right, chip. imagine this - best practice of lawful road bicycling on 'best practice' designed roadways. (how john forester would ride lemon grove ave. in lemon grove CA)

in communities with cycletracks, sharrowing the street ajacent would negate any dogmatic vehikularist complaints. developing intersection treatments for cycletracks are key to their safe implementation in the USA.

regardless of how cycletracks catch on in portland, there's going to be a VAST MAJORITY OF STREETS COMPLETELY UNMODIFIED in any way- bikeways networks work in conjunction with the remaining unmodified streets. cycle tracks will never become a majority roadscape design and will likely see limited implementation in America.

i suspect streets will simply get lanes of traffic completely blocked off from traffic and parking removed in creation of large bikelanes in portland if ridership continues to grow there.

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 08:18 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:07 AM
  #33  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
don't be so sure, randya. danarnold's a facts-lite idealogue that considers sprawl inevitable and a desired consequence of the american economic engine despite ample evidence to the contrary.
Wrong again Bek. I said:

"Residential sprawl, and I am no fan of it, is a necessary consequence of freedom of choice. Deal with it."

You post two claims, both of which are patently false, as I just demonstrated. You claim I think sprawl is 'desired' when I said I'm no fan of it. You claim I said it was an inevitable consequence of 'american [sic] economic engine,' when I attributed it to freedom of choice.

You are correct on one count, it is hard to have a rational discussion with you, if you insist on lying and misstating what people say.

Bek, what is YOUR plan to get rid of our current urban 'sprawl' without impacting freedom of choice?
danarnold is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:17 AM
  #34  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by genec
I bet we do too.

But bear in mind that "our current riding style" has only resulted in an average cycling modal share of about 2% in most areas of the country. Places that emphasize "better practices for cyclists" have reached a modal share closer to 6%.

This report: https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs...rpt_500v18.pdf outlines that walking and cycling together have a modal share of about 7%, and they strive to reach over 15%. That report outlines quite a few "better practices for cyclists."
The vast majority of this report addresses what can be done for roadways and facilities...there is much less regarding best practices for cyclists beyond the usual wear a helmet, be visible, be alert and follow the rules of the road (which is the meat of vc, no?).

• Wear a helmet every time you ride.
• Ride with, not against, traffic.
• Don’t ride on sidewalks—drivers don’t expect it.
• Obey traffic laws and signs, and use proper hand signals.
• See and be seen—wear brightly colored or reflective clothing; use lights and reflectors.
• Stay alert—always look and listen for traffic, pedestrians, and other bicyclists.
chipcom is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:19 AM
  #35  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
the OP references best practice design of roads, different from best practice of operation.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:20 AM
  #36  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by danarnold
vacuous complaint about rhetoric instead of substance......

Bek, what is YOUR plan to get rid of our current urban 'sprawl' without impacting freedom of choice?


whatever dude, you consider sprawl and auto centricity 'inevitable' which has been readily proven patently false by citizens' efforts in Portland and other communites (Golden CO as an example) that fight sprawl to increase livability.

Danarlond, rallying false cries against developing new urbanism and best practices of urban design (still applicable in suburbs!) that encourage livable walkable communities is so last century. Autos first and foremost, sprawl, intolerable commutes, high transportation costs, congested roadways, because americans want it that way? a laughable misread of current urban planning in america, dude.

go read the quote from the portland bikemaster plan draft- seems citizens there had an effective course of action despite claims of inevitable sprawl..... and exercised their freedom of choice thru the political process to enact it.

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 08:30 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:23 AM
  #37  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
the OP references best practice design of roads, different from best practice of operation.
ahh, my bad, I must have been distracted by the hookers.
chipcom is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:30 AM
  #38  
Kaffee Nazi
 
danarnold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Richland, WA
Posts: 1,374

Bikes: 2009 Kestrel RT800, 2007 Roubaix, 1976 Lambert-Viscount

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
vacuous complaints...
Nothing 'vacuous' about them. You made two statements, both obvious lies you got caught in. You avoid admitting it by calling them 'vacuous.' You are hopeless.

You are so caught up in what you want to preach and what you want to attribute to others that you are reduced to lying about what they say. Pathetic.
danarnold is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:33 AM
  #39  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
actually, my criticisms of your opinion about community planning and the UN-inevitability of sprawl are quite cogent.

I've quoted some of Portland's bike master plan 2030 draft as an example of community planning that rejects sprawl in favor of more liveable communities.

sprawl is not inevitable. usually, better bike ride share is a result!
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:37 AM
  #40  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
Originally Posted by chipcom
ahh, my bad, I must have been distracted by the hookers.
Me too- Well, Randya DID wonder if 'best practices' was vehicular cycling or bikeways planning.

I think street infrastructure should support vehicular cycling. The reality of any bikeways acommodated city is that the vast majority of streets will remain unenhanced for bicycling. vehicular cycling is expected in portland. planning for lawful road operation of bikes is imperative in american bicycle planning,

in the case of seperated cycletracks, a community could easily do, as Seattle has done, is place sharrows in the road adjacent to the bike path or cycletrack.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:39 AM
  #41  
Infamous Member
 
chipcom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 24,360

Bikes: Surly Big Dummy, Fuji World, 80ish Bianchi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
I think street infrastructure should support vehicular cycling.
I think we can all agree on that, Bek...the devil is in the details, implementation and unintended consequences (like mandatory use laws).
chipcom is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 08:48 AM
  #42  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
got to stand against mandatory bikelane and sidepath use laws. FRAP is applicable to all vehicles regardless of specificity of traffic code.

the devil IS in the details.

In a citiy with 5 percent enhanced bikeway'd roads (still allowing operation in accordance with the rules of the road), the remaining 95 percent of the roads remain unenhanced. communities have expectations of lawful, vehicular cycling on all the roads and notably, the vast majority of unenhanced streets.

just a relevant aside...


but to address concerns about a few hundred yards of cycletrack spelling the demise of roadway cycling in Portland, I say, REALLY?

municipalities can easily place sharrows adjacent to a cycletrack or bike path. Perhaps this should be part of MUTCD but i can see problems implementing this. Yet federal design guidelines are pretty clear that roads should be designed to acommodate bicyclists.

in the case of urban cycletracks sharrows in road adjacent make the most sense IMO.

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 08:55 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 09:02 AM
  #43  
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
you are aware VC is most emphatically NOT 'best practice' design for bicyclists by any metric. look at ridership in other countries, look at cycling rates by the elderly in countries that plan more considerately for bikes as transportation. compare to the USA and Britain.
Why not look at cycling rates in countries that don't plan at all for bikes (in the ways you want to) and still have ridership rates much, much higher than the USA and Britain? My other home, Japan, for example. If you looked at that, you may see that ridership rates are symptoms of how a city is organized overall and what its population is like, independent of any bike infrastructure.

In Portland and San Francisco it's a combination of decent public transportation (and car-share programs), mixed-use neighborhoods, and a large percentage of "hipsters" living in those cities who are riding bikes because it's "cool" (and would therefore do so whether it makes sense as the best form of transportation or not). It is not bike lane infrastructure that is driving high ridership in places like that, or any college town for that matter. San Francisco has been prohibited from doing any bike infrastructure for many years and still ridership has increased: because of the trend.

Spend the money and effort on public transportation and people will ride bikes. Otherwise, it simply doesn't make sense for most people, in most cities, to choose a bike over a car. The choice to give them is train over car and then they'll use the bike and walking to fill in the gaps between home and subway/train station.

Last edited by pacificaslim; 10-12-09 at 09:22 AM.
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 09:20 AM
  #44  
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
seriously, dude. whats your problem? woodthrushes? got anything about BICYCLING??? wait, i see. you're concerned about how to keep the bikelane clean. wow. they make machines that do that. i suspect portlands bikelanes get swept by bike tires pretty well anyway.
I work in municipal public works and was bringing up a practical issue about bike lane placement between parked cars and the curb: existing street sweepers used in most cities will not fit in that small of a lane to remove the trash and leaves that will tend to fill in that area. You will need to ban the cars part of the day (practical in downtown areas, but may be difficult to get applied in residential streets).

you think it's recreational riders and the hipsters? fueling the ridership in portland, san francisco and seattle?
Of course I believe that. I've lived in both Portland and San Francisco and its clear that those cities attract people who are different from mainstream america and move to (or choose to stay) in those cities because the city matches their worldview. These people are already more likely to be fit, be outdoorsy, be intellectual, and therefore more likely to ride a bike around regardless of what lines you paint on the ground, then people in a place like, say, Fresno. Surely, you can't seriously argue with me about this. Take a look around! Ask yourself: do you see more bikes in hipster neighborhoods or in the "hood" or "blue collar" neighborhoods?

As for recreational: those types of bikes and those types of riders still far surpass any sort of "transportation" commuting type bike sale and ridership in San Francisco and I suspect the NW as well. Don't kid yourself about that.
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 09:40 AM
  #45  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
the OP references best practice design of roads, different from best practice of operation.
You believe, and you argue, Bek, that the design of highways is separated from the design of the way they are used? Not very consistent are you, Bek, because you consistently argue for specific designs that are designed for a specific way to be used. Or, rather, the other way around. You argue for a specific way of cycling that determines the designs of the highways.
John Forester is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 09:42 AM
  #46  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
no john, i separate operating behavior from design of the environment. Riding versus the road i ride on.

like this, john. you have a degree in english:

I ride my bike on roads.

but in discussions of both riding style and road design i endorse lawful road bicycling johnny!


pacificslim, must be hard to ride a bike on the bus

just kidding.

they make smaller street sweepers, likely less expensive. in use around here and everwhere.

if you lived in San Francisco, you know how effective the city is at ticketing for street sweeping, eh? and that was just for the cars, imagine the revenue added from ticketing for regular bikelane maintenence!

Tokyo, where more riders bicycle daily than the entire USA, but mostly on the sidewalks and ample crosswalks in a culture more respectful of others and larger penalties for traffic infractions. sure.

bike facilities that encompass the entirety of current best practice american road design accommodates bicyclists wanting to use public roads for transportation. why do you have a problem with that?

pacificaslim you think american ingenuity can't figure out how to sweep some cycletracks? John Forester, you're a bicycle transportation engineer maybe you can design some smaller streetsweepers to address pacificaslims' facility maintence concerns

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 09:51 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 09:53 AM
  #47  
Surf Bum
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pacifica, CA
Posts: 2,184

Bikes: Lapierre Pulsium 500 FdJ, Ritchey breakaway cyclocross, vintage trek mtb.

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
bike facilities that encompass the entirety of current best practice american road design accommodates bicyclists wanting to use public roads for transportation. why do you have a problem with that?
i don't have a problem with it if we could afford everything. but i'd rather have my tax dollars spent first on a decent public transportation system so i could get rid of my car and live like i did in tokyo. once that is completed, sure, paint as many lines on the road and build as many bike paths as you'd like.

p.s. i know the make smaller sweepers - our city has one, for downtown sidewalks. i was speaking more from a fiscal standpoint: when asking cities to put the bike lanes between sidewalk and parking instead, realize there is more expense involved in that than just paint on the ground. they'll have to totally redo the way they clean the streets.
pacificaslim is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 09:57 AM
  #48  
totally louche
 
Bekologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: A land that time forgot
Posts: 18,023

Bikes: the ever shifting stable loaded with comfortable road bikes and city and winter bikes

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 8 Posts
so, design cities like san francisco or dallas?

i think the upkeep of a few hundred yards of cycle track can get addressed rather easily in a progressive city like portland.

why do you think a bike master plan and enhancements to transportation networks with relatively minor road restriping represents a huge cost to communities? the costs are so small and such a slight fraction to the cost of the rest of the public works associated with transportation infrastructure.


Investments in bicycling infrastructure actually reap fiscal benefits to communities as the green quotient of bicycling compares to the social costs of motoring and automobile infrastructure...... seems theres a net-net to design of roads to facilitate bike traffic. however it's done, paint is cheap and planning for bikes is less expensive over a wide variety of community, livability, environmental, maintainence and governmental/ operational concerns.

Last edited by Bekologist; 10-12-09 at 10:04 AM.
Bekologist is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 10:14 AM
  #49  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
actually, my criticisms of your opinion about community planning and the UN-inevitability of sprawl are quite cogent.

I've quoted some of Portland's bike master plan 2030 draft as an example of community planning that rejects sprawl in favor of more liveable communities.

sprawl is not inevitable. usually, better bike ride share is a result!
It is one thing to write a plan that "rejects sprawl". It is another matter entirely to view the actual events that occur after writing such a hope into a plan. The plan to be adopted in 2010 is an update of the plan adopted in 1996, and, I presume, there is a sequence of plans before that. It is wise to consider the effects of these earlier plans, to see which parts of them have come to pass, and what unplanned events have occurred.

It has been stated many times in these discussions that the basic urban pattern has an enormous effect on the utility, and therefore the use, of both bicycle transportation and motor transportation. The proposed 2010 plan indeed refers to this effect and indicates a desire to remodel Portland to be more medieval, less useful for motoring and more useful for bicycling and walking. Bek obviously supports this plan.

The past effects of past plans with similar goals need to be considered when predicting the effect of the 2010 plan. Those who consider urban patterns have two different views about the success of the past Portland plans. Those who consider the purely local, and largely environmental, effects seem to consider Portland a success. Those who consider the larger effects seem to consider Portland a city that has planned its way into decay. Indeed, one calls Portland a failed city. In my opinion, there is some evidence for the former view, and a lot stronger evidence for the latter view.

Therefore, even Bek's argument that bikeways produce transportationally significant increases in bicycle transportation is not supported by the Portland draft 2010 bicycle plan. Such increases will occur only with significant assistance from anti-motoring programs.

Therefore, if we are to consider the best practices for cyclists, we need to consider them in relation to the real world, not in relation to some idealized world that exists in only two types of places, in medieval cities and in the minds of anti-motoring planners. This means cycling in accordance with the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles and designing the road to best accommodate that method.
John Forester is offline  
Old 10-12-09, 10:16 AM
  #50  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bekologist
no john, i separate operating behavior from design of the environment. Riding versus the road i ride on.

like this, john. you have a degree in english:

I ride my bike on roads.

but in discussions of both riding style and road design i endorse lawful road bicycling johnny!

Then, Bek, why do you advocate highway designs that are based on cyclist-inferiority cycling on bikeways?
John Forester is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.