Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 365
  1. #51
    Senior Member Dave Cutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    in my recliner
    Posts
    1,622
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brennan View Post
    BTW, I just read an article about city planning and how it does influence how people choose to travel. The article is not bicycle specific, but it does illustrate how infrastructure can influence behavior. The article is actually an excerpt from a book that might prove to be an interesting read.
    An interesting concept (both the article and your post). You are saying.... YES.. build it "correctly" and they will come!?!? That is the old stalwart of failed government programs. Admit the program failed... but insist it only failed because it was improperly executed. I always interpret such claims as a cover-up to corruption. The phrases I would expect next would be: The need for a LARGER financial commitment. Maybe if the city/region/state was to pass a special billion dollar this-or-that THEN (without explanation as to how or why) the alternate system would work.... yeah right.

    Which came first... the chicken or the egg? Is the culture a result of government... or was government created to benefit the people.

  2. #52
    Senior Member Brennan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    My Bikes
    Surly CC, Trek Earl
    Posts
    634
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Cutter View Post
    You are saying.... YES.. build it "correctly" and they will come!?!?
    I guess that's close to what my point is. I'm not saying that current bike infrastructures were built incorrectly per se, just that they are being built in the only way they can be at this point, in piecemeal fashion. So, what you have is a very incomplete infrastructure competing with more complete and extensive infrastructures (motor vehicle/pedestrian), so the cycling infrastructure is at a disadvantage from the get-go.

    As to the larger scale planning discussed in the article, yes some things can be built "incorrectly." For example., the cul-de-sac communities probably worked for a lot of people because gas was cheap when they were built, but the design did not foresee rising energy prices and health problems from the resultant decrease in active transportation (e.g. walking) whereas the grid layout of Manhattan has effectively moved people around for centuries and has been able to adapt to changing trends.

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle, NY
    My Bikes
    too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
    Posts
    21,532
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Cutter View Post
    . You are saying.... YES.. build it "correctly" and they will come!?!? That is the old stalwart of failed government programs. Admit the program failed... but insist it only failed because it was improperly executed.....
    +1,000

    More of a bad thing doesn't magically make it a good thing. If the field of dreams concept were valid some bike infrastructure would lead to some increase in ridership. In that case, it could be argued that we see a correlation and could test it by seeing of more or better infrastructure leads to yet more ridership.

    The premise that a lack of evidence of correlation can be talked away with the "you just didn't do it right" argument is a classic attempt to talk ones way around failure.
    FB
    Chain-L site

    An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

    “Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

    “One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

    WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.

  4. #54
    Senior Member Brennan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    My Bikes
    Surly CC, Trek Earl
    Posts
    634
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    As a micro example, Broadway Street is the main street running through the center of Oakland (my hometown). From the base of the hills to the waterfront, the dedicated car lanes and the sidewalk both run continuously for the entire length of the street. But the bike infrastructure transitions several times, from bike lane to bike sharrow to nothing at all. This puts the cycling infrastructure at a distinct disadvantage, and it's hard to gauge its effectiveness when it's not nearly equal to other infrastructures.
    Last edited by Brennan; 12-21-13 at 12:42 PM.

  5. #55
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    545
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brennan View Post
    BTW, I just read an article about city planning and how it does influence how people choose to travel.
    Good article, but I disagree with the overall Cul-de-Sacs are bad element. Cul-de-Sacs and other streets can be made permeable, such as a bike/ped path connecting a series of Cul-de-Sacs that allow people walking and biking to take a fairly direct route while driving is funneled out to arterials. This produces a much more human bike/ped friendly neighborhood than a grid type layout.

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle, NY
    My Bikes
    too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
    Posts
    21,532
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    ... Cul-de-Sacs and other streets can be made permeable, such as a bike/ped path connecting a series of Cul-de-Sacs that allow people walking and biking to take a fairly direct route while driving is funneled out to arterials.
    +1, short cuts connecting cul-de-sacs are fairly common in this area. They make short safe connection that children can use to walk to school (for example) without needing to go the much longer way which also puts them on busier roads.

    I consider pedestrian connectors between cul-de-sacs and enclosed neighborhoods an excellent urban planning option that's not used nearly enough. Here in Westchester, I can cite dozens of examples where one has to go 2-3 miles or more to go between two houses 50 yards apart.
    FB
    Chain-L site

    An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

    “Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

    “One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

    WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Brennan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    My Bikes
    Surly CC, Trek Earl
    Posts
    634
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    Good article, but I disagree with the overall Cul-de-Sacs are bad element. Cul-de-Sacs and other streets can be made permeable, such as a bike/ped path connecting a series of Cul-de-Sacs that allow people walking and biking to take a fairly direct route while driving is funneled out to arterials. This produces a much more human bike/ped friendly neighborhood than a grid type layout.
    Great point, although I'm sure there are plenty of communities that are not permeable in that way. Also, keep in mind that the article is a book excerpt, so it's possible your point might be covered elsewhere in the book.

  8. #58
    Senior Member Brennan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    My Bikes
    Surly CC, Trek Earl
    Posts
    634
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FBinNY View Post
    Here in Westchester, I can cite dozens of examples where one has to go 2-3 miles or more to go between two houses 50 yards apart.
    There is a beach community in the Bay Area called Stinson Beach. In it, there is a development called Seadrift that is built right along the beachfront. It's incredibly baffling to me, but it was built without beach access between the houses. This means you can literally live right across the street from the beach, but you must walk up to a mile in one direction or the other to the end of the development to access the beach!

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    376
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sigh. Sigh. Sigh.

    First, US census data only captures people who commute >50% by bicycle.

    So, it leaves out anyone who commutes to a subway/train station by bicycle, then completes the rest of the route by, uh subway/train, and walking, if the rest of the route is just a bit more than bicycle.

    You think that doesn't happen in the real world? Think again.


    Oddly, the secure cages at Alewife filled as soon as they built them. The added another secure cage this year, and it's filled.

    BTW, in the United States, we spend more per capita on AUTOMOBILE PARKING then we do on bicycling. So don't make me laugh about the "billions" we spend each year on bicycle infrastructure. We spend about 1 billion per year year on bicycle infrastructure. That includes U posts BTW. (And five inch paint line that would have been painted anyway.)

    A MUP to a transit station is a HUGE win - yet the folks who post the most think it doesn't matter.

    -mr. bill
    Last edited by mr_bill; 12-23-13 at 09:30 AM.

  10. #60
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,551
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post

    ...I see the usual suspects pining away for copenhamsterdam-style world-class infrastructure but not responding to b_carfree's question. Can any of you who advocate for separation provide a single example where a large building program has led to a spike in cycling mode share. I am asking for just one example!...

    Okay, I'll bite. (as usual).

    I made reference in an earlier post to a discussion I had with an urban planner (currently working for HUD), who is interested in developing infrastructural changes on Cape Cod that would include and prioritize bicycling and walking in various villages, towns and neighborhoods.

    This impetus is a direct outgrowth of the Rails to Trails Cape Cod bike path which runs up a good portion of Cape Cod. The Rail Trail began as recreational use trail and became wildly popular within years of having been built. So, as far as recreational riders, absolutely, "Yes, if you build it they will come." happened here. BUT that is only the beginning. After a few years, locals, seasonal residents and seasonal workers began using the path for transportation between towns. Wait staff at restaurants, kitchen help, all the summer workers, often of student age come to the Cape without cars and the path became the way to get around. Tourists began to favor summer rentals right on the bike path or near it and would make many of their daily forays to the beach and nearby locations by bike as opposed to struggling with Cape traffic nightmares on Route 6.

    Suddenly bikes were in every town that lined the path but the problem is that many of the roads on the Cape are not conducive to cycling. They are narrow, twisty, lots of sand on the shoulders, poorly lit at night and populated in the summer months with clueless, distracted and often inebriated tourist drivers.

    The problem is Cape Cod is ideal for cycling for scenery, milder winter weather with relatively flat roads but has poorly designed infrastructure so bicycling tends to be limited to the bike path and some adjoining roads and streets. The plan is to begin to add more bike lanes, make more connections with separated infrastructure and extend the rail trails further down the Cape. Add to this plans for a bike share system that will tie into a new rail system as well as making sure buses and trains can accommodate bikes.

    Maybe you, and others, don't see it this way. But I see this kind of thinking and these kinds of changes as a direct result of added infrastructure. None of the above changes would have been conceived of without the Rail Trail and the thousands of cyclists it attracts yearly. Cape Cod is now considering making itself even more of a "cyclist destination" because of the positive economic benefits that come with it. How will they attract more cyclists? More infrastructure!

  11. #61
    Senior Member welshTerrier2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    I see the usual suspects pining away for copenhamsterdam-style world-class infrastructure but not responding to b_carfree's question. Can any of you who advocate for separation provide a single example where a large building program has led to a spike in cycling mode share. I am asking for just one example!
    I'll bite too. What is meant by "cycling mode share"? Is this supposed to measure commuter conversions? Does it impose relativity between car use and bike use? I reject that as the defining metric of whether we should or should not build more cycling infrastructure.

    The metric I prefer is one that measures whether separated paths, mostly MUPs, are getting light, medium or heavy usage. Infrastructure is built and either people are choosing to use it or they are not. Comparisons to auto usage are interesting and worth considering but my primary focus is on path usage. I would also point out that MUPs are not exclusive for bikes. In measuring the level of usage, all modes must be counted.

    I can't speak to bike paths all over the country. Taking the Boston area's Minuteman Bike Path, I can tell you I avoid it on nice weather weekends in the summer. The traffic is often very heavy. According to this website, http://www.brucefreemanrailtrail.org...012/index.html, a one-hour peak that was counted during September, 2012 found there were 462 users. In my view, that is the defining "mode share" metric we should care about.

    If you build it will they really come? The answer, at least for this bike path, is clearly yes.

    And one additional point about segregated bike paths. Our local bike club frequently includes a nearby MUP on our route. The MUP is roughly one-half of our overall ride. We have many novice riders who will not come with us on the roads. They take their cars and meet us for a ride on the bike path. By incorporating a MUP into our route, we see ourselves as being more "inclusive". Also, while on the path, the demographics are significantly different than road-riding cyclists. We see many more walkers. We see way more kids and families. This has nothing to do with "mode share". This is about people who are out getting exercise in a place they find enjoyable and safe. Would you argue that we should not have parks because they haven't been shown to proportionately decrease auto usage? MUPs are like parks.

    As for discussions of whether governments are competent or inept, I would only say that if you see poor cycling infrastructure design (and I do), do something about it ... or at least try to. I truly do not understand all the negative energy in this forum. For experienced cyclists to be arguing against safer, more extensive infrastructure to buffer young kids and novice riders from cars is the height of elitism. "I do fine riding on the roads and if you can't handle it then take up knitting" is not the battle cry I think we should be rallying around.

    Finally, if your primary objection to increased infrastructure is that "the metrics aren't there", what's your plan to get more people interested in cycling ... or is that someone else's job?
    Last edited by welshTerrier2; 12-21-13 at 04:34 PM.

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    3,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by welshTerrier2 View Post
    I can't speak to bike paths all over the country. Taking the Boston area's Minuteman Bike Path, I can tell you I avoid it on nice weather weekends in the summer. The traffic is often very heavy. According to this website, http://www.brucefreemanrailtrail.org...012/index.html, a one-hour peak that was counted during September, 2012 found there were 462 users. In my view, that is the defining "mode share" metric we should care about.

    If you build it will they really come? The answer, at least for this bike path, is clearly yes.
    With all due respect there is little debate in cycling advocacy that new separated infrastructure tends to concentrate bike traffic along particular routes. These kinds of individual examples do not provide good evidence of correlation between the installation of new cycling infrastructure and increases in overall mode share, which is the topic of this thread.
    Last edited by spare_wheel; 12-21-13 at 06:31 PM.
    This is why motorists hate us, and why I've given up riding on the road...You should be ashamed yourself, and you should be reviled by cyclists everywhere.

  13. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    pdx
    My Bikes
    2007 carpe diem frame custom build, trek 7.9 frame custom build, custom built chinese carbon fiber road bike, shopping bike
    Posts
    3,074
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by buzzman View Post
    Okay, I'll bite. (as usual).

    I made reference in an earlier post to a discussion I had with an urban planner (currently working for HUD), who is interested in developing infrastructural changes on Cape Cod that would include and prioritize bicycling and walking in various villages, towns and neighborhoods.

    This impetus is a direct outgrowth of the Rails to Trails Cape Cod bike path which runs up a good portion of Cape Cod. The Rail Trail began as recreational use trail and became wildly popular within years of having been built. So, as far as recreational riders, absolutely, "Yes, if you build it they will come." happened here. BUT that is only the beginning. After a few years, locals, seasonal residents and seasonal workers began using the path for transportation between towns. Wait staff at restaurants, kitchen help, all the summer workers, often of student age come to the Cape without cars and the path became the way to get around. Tourists began to favor summer rentals right on the bike path or near it and would make many of their daily forays to the beach and nearby locations by bike as opposed to struggling with Cape traffic nightmares on Route 6.

    Suddenly bikes were in every town that lined the path but the problem is that many of the roads on the Cape are not conducive to cycling. They are narrow, twisty, lots of sand on the shoulders, poorly lit at night and populated in the summer months with clueless, distracted and often inebriated tourist drivers.

    The problem is Cape Cod is ideal for cycling for scenery, milder winter weather with relatively flat roads but has poorly designed infrastructure so bicycling tends to be limited to the bike path and some adjoining roads and streets. The plan is to begin to add more bike lanes, make more connections with separated infrastructure and extend the rail trails further down the Cape. Add to this plans for a bike share system that will tie into a new rail system as well as making sure buses and trains can accommodate bikes.

    Maybe you, and others, don't see it this way. But I see this kind of thinking and these kinds of changes as a direct result of added infrastructure. None of the above changes would have been conceived of without the Rail Trail and the thousands of cyclists it attracts yearly. Cape Cod is now considering making itself even more of a "cyclist destination" because of the positive economic benefits that come with it. How will they attract more cyclists? More infrastructure!

    I'm a huge fan of these kind of designated regional bike paths/trails...but this is a different topic. The topic here is whether or not there is empirical support for the "build it and they will come" thesis as applied to urban cycling infrastructure.
    This is why motorists hate us, and why I've given up riding on the road...You should be ashamed yourself, and you should be reviled by cyclists everywhere.

  14. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    4,827
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post


    I also think it's very important to note that ACS commuting numbers are not cycling mode share numbers. For example PDX has 6 universities/colleges with tens of thousands of student and not a single one of these student commuters is counted in mode share stats. Moreover, a person who does not commute the majority of the time by bike or who has a mixed bike commute is not counted.
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
    Sigh. Sigh. Sigh.

    First, US census data only captures people who commute >50% by bicycle.


    -mr. bill
    I filled out an ACS once. It had me list every trip segment, its purpose and the mode I used. I suppose, based on what you two have written, that they process out the bicycle portion if that is less than half the mileage. Does anyone have a source for this policy? I'd love to see their rationale and maybe there is some way to glean out just how common that is.

  15. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Eugene, Oregon
    Posts
    4,827
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    Davis had a continuous and connected bike network and somehow mode share still plummeted (and is only now recovering).
    Quote Originally Posted by Brennan View Post
    The Davis wikipedia page says "from 1990 to 2000, the US Census Bureau reported a decline in the fraction of commuters traveling by bicycle, from 22 percent to 15 percent." Even with a decline in ridership, the low end of 15% bicyclists is still far higher than other American cities.
    Actually, prior to numbers being kept, Davis had a much higher percentage of the population commuting by bike. We never thought it would change, so there was no rush to document what we had there. Estimating based on the published numbers today and the relative number of bikes I see/saw in use and parked, I'd estimate that we had more than four times the use back in the early '80s relative to today. By the time the '90s arrived, it felt bike-free compared to a decade earlier.

    In that "golden age" of bikes in Davis, there wasn't really a contiguous bike infrastructure. There was a side path on the main drag that was the site of most of the injury-accidents I knew of and then there were three north/south bike lanes and two east/west bike lanes. Riding in town was pretty evenly split between roads with bike lanes and roads without. However, it really didn't matter since there were almost no cars in use. Starting in the late '80s and continuing to present, there has been a massive build-out of bike facilities of varying quality.

    Yeah, in Davis, they built it and the bicyclists not only didn't come, they left. That said, I'm sure most communities would feel invaded by bikes if they had the 15% that Davis currently enjoys. It's just that 15% is quite low compared to the historical use in that locale.

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle, NY
    My Bikes
    too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
    Posts
    21,532
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    I don't generally buy into the build it and they'll come concept, but believe that the existence of infrastructure probably influences ridership at the fringes, namely that segment willing and maybe even eager to ride to work, but seriously uncomfortable in traffic.

    I don't think this i a large segment, but know of some individuals that fit the criteria.

    OTOH-whether infrastructure makes a difference is difficult to prove because it's so prone to statistical bias. If you survey an avenue before and after adding infrastructure, you'll see an increase. But you don't know if it's simply a diversion from the nearby streets. Likewise but opposite if you survey a street where infrastructure was added to a nearby parallel.

    IMO- the field dreams concept does hold in isolated cases, namely where it makes bicycle commuting possible where it hadn't been before. Case in point NYC's East River crossings. Prior to improvements in bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure only a few brave souls would take them on. Some bridges had no access, others had poor access or ended in very intimidating (being polite) neighborhoods. After NYC made serious improvements the bicycle mode across the East River expanded exponentially.

    I'd suspect you'd see comparable changes in CA if a bike path were added parallel to some freeways that are the only through narrow passes, and going by bicycle would be a large detour around the choke point. Therefore IMO, probably the best bang for the buck will be building infrastructure to break through these bicycle barriers, rather than just to make now passable roads more attractive.

    Disclaimer, the above is opinion, so feel free to disagree.
    FB
    Chain-L site

    An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

    “Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

    “One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

    WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.

  17. #67
    Senior Member welshTerrier2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    95
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    With all due respect there is little debate in cycling advocacy that new separated infrastructure tends to concentrate bike traffic along particular routes. These kinds of individual examples do not provide good evidence of correlation between the installation of new cycling infrastructure and increases in overall mode share, which is the topic of this thread.
    A couple of points. First, segregated paths do far more than "concentrate bike traffic". They also bring out people who don't, and won't, ride on the roads. The point is that they create new riders.

    Second, with regard to your statement about "the topic of this thread", I think it's fair to say that there are at least two topics being discussed. The first topic, at least as it relates to the OP, is as you stated. The second topic, however, is whether infrastructure increases ridership and whether we should therefore invest in more infrastructure. This second theme, which as I stated should be the criterion we use to determine whether to build more infrastructure rather than using "modal share", has also been a key part of the discussion in this thread.

    All sorts of things would have to change to make huge progress on modal share. To suggest that segregated bike paths have failed because they have not, as an isolated factor, converted more car commuters to cycling commuters is an unreasonable expectation. All kinds of other physical, psychological and cultural changes are needed to end America's auto worship. Just building a segregated bike path will never be enough.

    Again, though, building segregated paths creates a resource for many riders who would not otherwise ride or who would ride much less. It seems like some on BF don't agree with that and don't value it as an objective. I almost never see kids cycling on the roads where I live. It seems like we've lost an entire generation to our toxic car culture. I see plenty of kids on the bike paths, though. Seems like a good thing to me. Perhaps someday a few of those kids will become cycle commuters. We have to start somewhere. The pessimists around here seem to think it's time to give up because the experiment has already failed.

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    401
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    I'm a huge fan of these kind of designated regional bike paths/trails...but this is a different topic. The topic here is whether or not there is empirical support for the "build it and they will come" thesis as applied to urban cycling infrastructure.
    NYC has some solid data. A cordon count for Manhattan's central business district is taken on an October weekday each year. Pedestrians, mass transit users, vehicles and bicycles are included. The northern screen line is at 60th Street. There are only 15 avenues to monitor. A class I bike facility along the Hudson River was opened in 2002. Here are some of the inbound 60th Street screen counts.

    Year: Total including Hudson River Greenway, (Hudson River Greenway)
    2000: 5072, (0)
    2001: 4343, (0)
    2002: 4949, (1056)
    2003: 6207, (1490)
    2004: 6088, (1304)
    2005: 5532, (1129)
    2006: 7253, (964)
    2007: 8878, (1852)
    2008: 9027, (2775)
    2009: 12947, (3573)
    2010: 15379, (3610)
    2011: 15055, (3567)

    2000 is included to show the effects of 9/11/2001. The total number of people entering at the 60th St screen line did not reach its 2000 level until 2008.

  19. #69
    Senior Member CrankyOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    545
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I wonder if a more important question is—if you don't build it, will they come?

    Will 8-year-olds ride to school without safe segregated infrastructure? Will the average mom or grandma ride to the store for dinner stuff?

  20. #70
    Senior Member Dave Cutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    in my recliner
    Posts
    1,622
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Brennan View Post
    ..... But the bike infrastructure transitions several times, from bike lane to bike sharrow to nothing at all. This puts the cycling infrastructure at a distinct disadvantage, and it's hard to gauge its effectiveness when it's not nearly equal to other infrastructures.
    So.... people like myself LOVE cycling because..... where I live we have easy, convenient, well engineered, and safe cycling infrastructure?!?!?!? Is this a JOKE? Or perhaps you design cycling infrastructures for a living?

    All the other cyclist I've met and talked to... also seem to have a love for cycling. People of my age remember the pure joy of cycling before the expenditure of taxpayer treasure. We cycle because we love to cycle.... not because government has gifted us with infrastructure. Cyclist built the sport, hobby, habit of cycling..... not politicians.

    With the exception of high speed expressways there isn't a road, lane, or street on the entire planet that doesn't have cyclist pedaling on it. Yet.... the infrastructure crowd thinks that cyclist will (magically somehow) benefit if they are pushed onto MUPs? I think some people are just... afraid of traffic... and are trying to high-jack alternate transportation to cater to their own fears.
    Last edited by Dave Cutter; 12-21-13 at 10:46 PM.

  21. #71
    Senior Member Dave Cutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    in my recliner
    Posts
    1,622
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    I wonder if a more important question is—if you don't build it, will they come?
    Will 8-year-olds ride to school without safe segregated infrastructure? Will the average mom or grandma ride to the store for dinner stuff?
    The old saying goes: There are no stupid questions....

    However.... nearly 80 years ago my father received a ballooned tired Roll Faster [brand] bicycle from his stepfather under the condition that Dad would repay his stepfather for the bicycle from his earnings from delivering newspapers. Dad also rode his bicycle to school. Over a half a century ago... I also rode my bicycle to school. My brother rode his bicycle to deliver newspapers as well as cycling to school. THERE WAS NO INFRASTRUCTURE.

    My wife and I do bicycle together (and yes the grandkids do call her grandma).

    And some of the kids also bicycle.... all of the grandkids enjoy bicycles. Although I am the serious cyclist of the bunch. The grandkids think of bicycles as more of a toy... and so do their parents.

    So the answer? Yeah... a percentage of a few.... have loved bicycles for over a century. And likely will a century from now. Some of us will be commuters, students, kids and/or grandparents. Cycling will both rise and fall in popularity as a sport and as a hobby. There might even be a period of time when alternate transportation becomes popular and trendy... for a while.

    But ON ONE.... looks for more energy wasting ways to cook, clean, raise kids, or get from here to there. People bicycle... because the love cycling. Those of us who cycle realized we will always be a small percentage of the population.

  22. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle, NY
    My Bikes
    too many bikes from 1967 10s (5x2)Frejus to a Sumitomo Ti/Chorus aluminum 10s (10x2), plus one non-susp mtn bike I use as my commuter
    Posts
    21,532
    Mentioned
    51 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    I wonder if a more important question is—if you don't build it, will they come?

    Will 8-year-olds ride to school without safe segregated infrastructure? Will the average mom or grandma ride to the store for dinner stuff?
    It depends on where they live, where the school is and the roads in between (not counting issues of whether the school allows it, and if there's a place to lock bikes).

    When I grew up in NYC, schools had bike racks, and they were used. This is before anyone spoke of separate infrastructure. In most communities children ride bicycles on their residential streets, they ride to the park, library and so on. No infrastructure needed.

    OTOH- if there's a residential separated from the school with 1/4 miles on a 4 lane artery as the only route, the answer might be no.

    People used to let their children ride bicycles with little thought of the danger, though most parents made some effort to teach about traffic. Bicycling's image as dangerous is a very recent phenomenon, partly brought about by increased participation, and the constant hammering about helmet use.

    Let me be clear, more participation doesn't change the rate of accidents, but it raises the number. So when the sport was unpopular we didn't hear about that many accidents, but with higher numbers everybody has a third hand story about somebody's death on a bike.

    Years ago I was deeply involved in the hosteling movement. Our organization sent thousands of kids on bicycle tours all over and across the USA and Europe. (before cell phones, the internet, and FAX, or bicycle helmets) The death and injury rates we saw were very comparable to those of summer camps (we had crashes, they had drownings).

    Despite what people believe, bicycling is safe on non-arterials, and while some infrastructure may be indicated, it's the icing, not the cake. Infrastructure doesn't lead to more bicycling, bicycling leads to calls for infrastructure. If there weren't already large numbers of bicyclists, nobody in politics would be spending tax money to accommodate them.
    FB
    Chain-L site

    An ounce of diagnosis is worth a pound of cure.

    “Never argue with an idiot. He will only bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.”, George Carlin

    “One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions” - Adm Grace Murray Hopper - USN

    WARNING, I'm from New York. Thin skinned people should maintain safe distance.

  23. #73
    ---- buzzman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Newton, MA
    Posts
    4,551
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by spare_wheel View Post
    I'm a huge fan of these kind of designated regional bike paths/trails...but this is a different topic. The topic here is whether or not there is empirical support for the "build it and they will come" thesis as applied to urban cycling infrastructure.
    Really? Is that an agenda you just set I don't recall that kind of parameter having been set in the OP.

    In that case I, too, would call your attention to similar paths leading in and out of DC, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco and the Hudson Greenway in NYC. And I am only too happy to point out that places like Falmouth on Cape Cod have areas of population density that could constitute a definition of "urban" and those are some of the areas that urban planners are looking at adding bike infrastructure to revitalize those areas.

    These MUP's are attractive to large numbers of riders often initially for recreational purposes but eventually serve as corridors for bicycle travel of all kinds. And there is no doubt that they not only draw riders to them but they are a gateway to cycling for thousands of new riders every year.

    And @Dave Cutter needs to brush up on his history especially with respect to bicycle riders and "the government". Read the history of the League of American Wheelmen and how their early advocacy led to governmental investment in our roadways and what eventually became our entire highway system. Who does he thinks pays for those roads that cyclists ride on? Who does he thinks builds those roads? Not the government?!! And that it doesn't get political around highway expenditures? It's all politics. Please, those of us who've been around long before all this infrastructure talk hopefully have the wisdom to know that.

    And, Dave, when I started riding, racing and touring in the late 1960's there were less than 200,000,000 people in the United States driving 85,000,000 cars there are now more than 310,000,000 people driving 285,000,000 cars on roughly the same number of roads. Think that might contribute to the desire for bike infrastructure?
    Last edited by buzzman; 12-21-13 at 11:47 PM.

  24. #74
    Senior Member work4bike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Atlantic Beach Florida
    Posts
    618
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
    Sigh. Sigh. Sigh.

    First, US census data only captures people who commute >50% by bicycle.
    Ahh, that's interesting. I remember filling out the last census report, but I don't remember anything about bike transportation, but maybe I'm just forgetting. How do they collect that data? I definitely commute greater than 50% by bike.
    "The aim of science is to make difficult things understandable in a simpler way; the aim of poetry is to state simple things in an incomprehensible way. The two are incompatible."

    -- Paul Dirac

  25. #75
    Cycle Year Round CB HI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Honolulu, HI
    Posts
    11,420
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOne View Post
    I wonder if a more important question is—if you don't build it, will they come?

    Will 8-year-olds ride to school without safe segregated infrastructure?
    There you go, proof that bike lanes kill cycling by kids. As kids in the 1960s, before anyone ever heard of a bike lane, we would ride our bicycles to school. Now that we have bike lanes, Moms drive there kids to school.
    Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •