Originally Posted by
spare_wheel
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?