UberGeek

Because it's not politically savvy to reduce oil dependency. I mean, if we do that, then what good would the billions in oil subsidies be good for?

genec

John Forester

As I wrote before, one of the large motivations for the Interstate Highway System was the crowded condition of the roads of the time. The traffic was there and needed to be better accommodated. I don't know what you, Gene, think was the condition of transportation in the USA in, say, 1950; you write as if you think that the interstates were new routes through virgin territory, rather like the first transcontinental railroads. But the transcontinental Lincoln highway project dated to the late 1920s, if I recall.

Gene, and others, make much of the fact that the official title of the first Interstate Highway bill referred to national defense, as if there were no other motivation for building it. That was to get around the national vs state funding system complications, no more than that.

As for a national defense bikeways bill, Obama made that point in a speech (speeches?) some time ago (maybe in the last year?).

Why do we build sidewalks, even without estimates of traffic volume? Business area sidewalks have sufficient volume without any other justification, so consider sidewalks in residential areas. Such sidewalks connect directly to every house on the street, to provide access for any non-vehicular entry or egress or trip. The rules of the road provide for two different classes of road users, drivers and pedestrians, with dramatically different operating characteristics. The sidewalk/roadway system provides for both classes of operation in reasonably satisfactory ways, and we have determined that it is better to have pedestrians on the sidewalk than to have pedestrians on the roadway. Nothing particularly odd about that.

Pscyclepath

The major impetus for building the interstate highway system was Dwight Eisenhower's cross-country road trip with an Army convoy in the early 1920s, testing the movement of military material by road convoy, using the roads available. Subsequently, one of Eisenhower's specialties as a general staff officer became mobilization in time of war or increased readiness. Observing the German autobahn and similar European roadways in the mid-1940s provided a little extra inspiration, and when Eisenhower got into a position where he could do something about it, it became one of his pet projects in his presidential administration.

It's come to be used for many other things since the 1950s. but the original idea was indeed speeding up transcontinental movement of military forces and supplies... or at least one of the major justifications for using federal funds to pay for it...

genec

Right. Nothing to do with civilian motor vehicle transportation...

So such things as "road use estimates" and the like were not really even a consideration... basically the 1956 highway act was a "build it and they will come" project. (BTW there ARE vast stretches of Interstate out west that only have about a 1 car per minute use)

Of course it did not hurt that the Secretary of Defense at the time (under Eisenhower) was also the former President of General Motors... obviously no hidden agenda there, eh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Erwin_Wilson

Now imagine if Schwinn had somehow encouraged a bill to pass, that was the foundation of "bicycle highways" to be built in all our cities, "to reduce the national dependance on foreign oil."

Meanwhile John Forester is rambling on about the "operating characteristics" of cars and people, while totally ignoring local 50MPH+ and 65MPH arterial roads and 12MPH cyclists and then citing that there "just isn't enough demand... " SIGH

John Forester

It seems an anti-motoring ideological superstition that the Interstate Highway System was not designed for civilian motor transport but for wartime military movements. Well, consider. There was agitation for freeway systems in 1940 and 1941, long before America entered WW2 and expected that the oceans would prevent any substantial military invasion. I read that material in 1940 or 1941. Even in 1956, what possibility was there of any power mounting a trans-oceanic invasion of the USA? Remember the enormous effort it took to get across the 40 miles or so of the English Channel in 1944? Remember the enormous fleet that was organized to attempt the invasion of puny little Japan in 1945? There was no power on Earth capable of a transoceanic invasion of the US anywhere in sight in 1956. It just seems that anti-motorists have to believe that the freeway system was not built to serve motorists, and therefore have to invent other explanations.

This anti-motoring superstition has another parallel. Gene argues that if there were a national program of building bicycle freeways in our cities, like the Cal56 sidepath, the nation would experience a significant drop in oil imports. Building such freeway sidepaths requires oil in several forms. I wonder how many bicycle trips are necessary to pay off the initial investment in oil spent by means of reduced motoring? I suppose that Gene has such figures to support his advocacy?

Then there is the question of how long it would take to accumulate sufficient bicycle trips on freeway sidepaths such as Gene advocates; what's oil payoff period for such an investment? No doubt Gene has figures for this also, to support his chosen advocacy? That's where catchment area analysis comes in.

genec

JOHN, "ANTI MOTORISTS" DID NOT INVENT "THE DEFENSE FUNDING" RUSE TO FUND THE 1956 HIGHWAY PROJECT!

You seem to overlook that tidbit of FACT in your comments on "catchment analysis" and your comments on "agitation for freeway systems in 1940 and 1941."

Amazing... simply amazing. Anti motorists indeed.

John Forester

Gene, learn to read English. I never made the claim that ""ANTI MOTORISTS" [DID NOT] INVENT[ed] "THE DEFENSE FUNDING" RUSE TO FUND THE 1956 HIGHWAY PROJECT".

What I wrote was: "It seems an anti-motoring ideological superstition that the Interstate Highway System was not designed for civilian motor transport but for wartime military movements." That means, to say it again, that anti-motorists appear unable to understand that the Interstate Highway System was built to serve civilian motor transport, and therefore find the need to invent the superstition that it was built for military movements. I can't help it that anti-motorists, such as yourself, are driven to believe such stupid superstitions, but you should never claim that I suffer from the same.

genec

John, where did the funding come from for the 1956 highway act? How was this funding justified? List sources and links.

Oh and once again I am not anti-motoring... I am pro bicycle... meaning I think there should be other forms of transportation supported in this country other than the personal motor car.

John Forester

I suggest that you read the following: https://www.nationalatlas.gov/article...a_highway.html

That article demonstrates governmental interest in an interstate highway system officially starting in 1938, an interest that was developed over several iterations in the 1940s and 1950s, and which developed into the present system with funding from federal gas tax funds. This article demonstrates that the beliefs that Gene presents to us are nonsense.

genec

I thought that this was perhaps the most interesting aspect of that article:

In other words they built a system with the expectation that users would eventually flock to it...

Yet no matter how many times I make a similar suggestion about bike highways you continue to state... "what are the catchment numbers."

John, who cares... if we follow the model of the interstate system... you build it and build it to a good standard and eventually it becomes useful.

John Forester

That little factoid provided by Gene (summarized in square brackets] is not evidence that the Interstate Highway System was built with the purpose of generating a great increase in motor traffic. Of course, it was expected that motoring would continue to increase, as it had before the IHS, and capacity was required to accommodate that increase, and to provide better conditions as well. However, there are bits in the literature that indicate the surprise produced by the amount of the increase; more than anticipated. However, in another sense, the kind of use that developed was not different than what was done before. The functions provided by passenger cars and trucks did not differ greatly before and after the construction of the IHS; distances increased, but were well within the abilities of the vehicles and drivers.

Gene believes, without providing real argument, that a system of paths alongside urban freeways, making the same connections with the rest of the road system that the freeway does, will attract a large number of motorists into bicycle transportation. Gene admits that he has never considered the utility of such a system, has never considered catchment area analysis to determine the practical area served by such a path. As I wrote recently in this discussion, even though such a path provides faster travel along itself than does a normal road, the advantage is so little, when compared with the extra distance required to use such a path from random origins and destinations, that its catchment area is so small around each road connection that not many people would find it advantageous to use it. I did this kind of analysis some thirty years ago for a facility that was much more favorably situated than the paths that Gene advocates, and the utility of that facility was quite small.

genec

No John, yet again you are twisting the words of others. I have quite considered this system and have seen (and used) a very good model of such in Oulu Finland.

And once again you fail to realize the safety aspect of such a system... where cyclists do not have to share freeway speed roads (50 and 65MPH locally) with distracted motorists.

And catchment analysis... wasn't needed to justify the IHS, why should it be required for a bike highway?

gcottay

Perhaps because it was sold as the National Defense highway system?

That said, there must be some locations in which short interstate parallels would see high use rates, especially if the bike highway would span some obstacle.

John Forester

Gene has presented no evidence that he has considered the utility of freeway sidepaths such as he advocates, not o the CA56 sidepath that, in particular, he advocates. The evidence would concern the trips for which that path was advantageous relative to the general density of trips in the area; in short, the catchment area analysis, about which he was not only ignorant but also despises.

Gene keeps arguing, without any significant evidence, that the IHS was built without evidence of existing demand, built in the hope that that demand would show up. All I can say about Gene's view is that it conflicts with just about all the evidence for all roads, not only the IHS. One wonders what Gene thinks about how government operates.

Gene wants his freeway sidepaths built regardless of whether they would attract much use, which is why he finds himself forced to argue the obviously untrue case that the IHS was built without knowledge of demand.

genec

But John Forester denies this old National Defense story... so gee, it must not be true.

RazrSkutr

Yet many suburbs in Los Angeles lack sidewalks. Especially the richer ones.

John Forester

Gene has offered as his authority for his view a posting by a person who writes under the pseudonym Pscylepath. I have previously posted the following historical account, which describes the step by which the Interstate Highway System was established, with first efforts starting in 1938. The URL is:

https://www.nationalatlas.gov/article...a_highway.html

I suggest that any of you who tend to give credence to the ideological view expressed by Gene and Psychlepath should read this account. Of course, it probably has some bias, but I think that we can be reasonably certain that it is not tainted by the ideological warfare surrounding bicycle transportation.

John Forester

Indeed, in 1960 I bought a lot and had a house built in a rather fancy new development in Fullerton, CA. None of the streets in that development had sidewalks. The two houses occupied by my parents in the Berkeley Hills, with the area developed starting in the 1910s and serviced by streetcars, were on streets with sidewalks. However, the first house I owned was quite close by, but in an area that was too steep to be serviced by streetcars, and was therefore developed only more slowly (my house was built in 1954). My street, a funny 1-1/2 lane street that went nowhere, had no sidewalks, as was true for several such streets. I know of developments in Florida where the zoning laxity allows developments with infrastructure that is insufficient from the start, loading residents with later bills to make their area decently habitable. In short, creation of instant suburban slums. I consider these all to be deficient.

genec

"Pscyclepath" John, at least try to cut and paste it if you can't simply retype it... also note that Pscyclepath is an LCI; that it is a cyclist that trains others on how to ride a bike in a generally vehicular manner. And since this is the ONLY nationwide organization that offers any training what so ever (that I am aware of), you might want to consider LCIs "allies" in promoting proper cycling.

John Forester

As ever, Gene, you offer recommendations that are based on ignorance of the facts. It would be nice if you were to learn first about the matters on which you write.

genec

Let's see, what facts was I ignorant of? That Pscyclepath is an LCI? That LCIs teach folks how to ride bikes? That LCIs are of a national organization? That the LAB classes the LCIs teach are generally of a vehicular nature? I did mentioned that I was only aware of one nation wide organization that teaches cycling... there may be others, but I did specify "that I am aware of."

Perhaps it was the spelling issue... I cut and pasted his name... so I doubt that was it.

I'm just wondering which are the facts of which you claim I have ignorance in that last post.

I can only conclude that this is your usual propaganda... unless you can tell me specifically which facts are not facts.

John Forester

Certainly. LAB's prime purpose is promotion of bikeways in order to increase the volume of bicycle transportation, no matter how incompetently done. Therefore, the training of LCI's has been quite scandalous at several times in recent history. And, regardless of the current quality of the training, the management of LAB makes public announcements deleterious to the concept that cyclists ought to obey the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles. I designed and managed the original training; I know how far that became degraded, which is why I pulled back the permission to call it Effective Cycling. In short, a randomly selected LCI is not likely to provide good training.

The prime motivation for the better LCIs is the national insurance protection provided by LAB; that's why they remain. There is inquiry at the present time to obtain similar insurance protection for a group of instructors, be they originally LCIs or originally ECs or new, to provide training in obeying the rules of the road for drivers of vehicle without political interference.

genec

But what of the facts are not facts. You have cited your opinions only about the organization... but have not denied that LCIs train cyclists, that the training is generally of the vehicular method, that the LAB is the only national organization teaching people how to ride... etc etc.

You have not denied any of the above with facts, but merely countered with your opinion and the usual propaganda.

What other program, nation wide, offers cycling education? Is it even possible to take a class of the John Forester™ approved method? Through whom or where is such education available?

Bekologist

i'd heard thru a grapevine leading back to the organization that the influence of forester had a lot to do with grinding cycling education to a virtual halt over at the LAB. Paralyzed it.

LCIs are the ones leading the way in communities, at bike rodeos and offering safe cycling classes around the country nowadays, there's absolutely no call for johns disparagement of the League's cycling education efforts.