prathmann

Most American college towns in the late '60s through early '70s. During that 'bike boom' era bicycle use expanded greatly even though there was virtually no bicycle specific infrastructure in most of the country (Davis, Ca being an exception). I lived in Fargo, ND at that time and saw bicycle use increase by at least an order of magnitude with no infrastructure other than a few bike racks at schools and campus buildings.

One factor that's frequently not acknowledged in encouraging a growth in bicycle mode share is having policies that discourage car use by making it either inconvenient or expensive. College campuses are one example where restrictions on on-campus use of cars by students, limited parking space, and expensive parking permits lead to much greater use of bicycles for transportation even if no bicycle infrastructure is provided (although that does tend to also appear on campuses - but in response to demand rather than as a catalyst for it).

spare_wheel

Apart from the fact that you are incapable of understanding the distinction between fully segregated infrastructure and other types of infrastructure as well as traffic calming, road diets, parking elmination, legal reform, gas taxes, and vehicle excise taxes you do realize you linking to a rather infamous personality:

https://bikeyface.com/2012/02/03/so-ladies/

spare_wheel

ah! mr pedro finds an unbiased source.

CB HI

Jaywalk3r has pretty much proven himself to be either totally clueless, a troll or both.

Amazing he cannot even provide the street and cross street of the >12% grade hill he routinely rides. Implies troll.

Yet he seems to truly believe some of the other completely absurd cycling claims. Clueless who believes his own misguided statements.

It is so close to having our friend Bek in this thread.

CB HI

"Dude, check the thread, I did not start the gravity or Higgs Boson discussion."



So you have reading comprehension problems as well. I did not start the gravity/physics discussion. Take your problem up with Jaywalk3r.

genec

While it is true that bike infrastructure alone does not increase modal share, it is highly unlikely that any modal share increase would be sustained without societal support... such as political and infrastructure. At the same token it is unlikely that infrastructure alone will increase modal share for cyclists... this was demonstrated in Davis where the infrastructure didn't really change, but modal share went down due to more acceptance of motorists around campus.

But on the flip side, no area has sustained an increase in modal share without a subsequent increase in cycling specific infrastructure.

spare_wheel

Oregon just passed a law that opens up the use of lottery money for bike projects. Interestingly, one of the arguments used by state reps was that chamber of commerces support cycling. This would not have happened without a lot of cyclist dollars spent. We advocates need to focus more on these kind of self-reinforcing feedback loops.

Jaywalk3r

Have you any examples from the most recent quarter century?

Populations have increased substantially since the early 70s, as has traffic congestion in the USA. That was a time when a considerable percentage of kids walked and biked to school, which is now rather uncommon.

How high has bike modal share remained in most American college towns since the early 70s? At the university where I study and work, it's pretty dismal. At my previous university, in a different region of the country, it was almost non-existent.

Jaywalk3r

No, I'm not incapable of understanding the difference between different types of bike infrastructure.

Do you have any actual rebuttal to any of those studies, or are you going to rely on your genetic logical fallacy?

Jaywalk3r

Sayeth the poster who relies on ad hominem attacks to try to make his points.

So, when are you going to come and ride with me on a hot summer day? Show some backbone and back up all the smack you talk.

Jaywalk3r

You only demonstrated that you know nothing about science.

spare_wheel

Jaywalk3r

It's actually pretty funny that you, someone apparently incapable of forming a cogent argument to rebut the content of posts, should accuse me of trolling. Care to actually address the topic, or are you going to continue hiding behind your ad hominem attacks?

corvuscorvax

Jaywalk3r is completely clueless, but you have managed to utterly outdo him or her in general incoherence: And yes, it was you who, as far as I can tell, brought up the expansion of the universe, E=mc^2, gravity being a "pushing" force (whatever the hell that means), etc.

Please stop. It hurts our brains.

Sincerely,

The Math People

seafood

Let's think about why we're discussing this point. This was brought up in the context of taking correlation with a grain of salt, in looking at large ridership figures accompanied by infrastructure build-outs. Rather than trying to argue whether there's a causation there or if there is absolutely none, let's flip it around and see if there are any studies specifically focused on causation and riding behaviors, shall we? I did a quick search and found one such study. Do read the methodology and other details, but I found the following interesting:

What I find pertinent to this discussion is that cyclists value avoiding high-traffic areas and shortening the trip more than seeking out bicycle-specific infrastructure. That's not to say that if such infrastructure weren't built into an unavoidable high-traffic route, that perhaps more people will ride, but it does seem to also indicate that taking holistic measures to manage driving patterns benefits cycling overall. I'm just starting to look at the study (check the full PDF), but this is how I'm currently reading their synopsis.

CB HI

"Dude, check the thread, I did not start the gravity or Higgs Boson discussion."



So you have reading comprehension problems as well. I did not start the gravity/physics discussion. Take your problem up with Jaywalk3r.

Proving your reading comprehension problems as Jaywalk3r started his hills are like riding flat ground gravity BS on page 3 post 74.

And everyone please note this is the post starting the attacks in this thread, before he complains about being attacked.


The reasons The Math People should stay away from physics. They can do the theoretical math but have no clue what it means in the real world.

CB HI

Says the guy that started the BS.

Having done some extreme physical exertion in the Philippines during their hot season, lets do your stupid challenge there. It certainly beats Springfield, MO in heat and humidity by a long shot.

Still no street and cross street of the >12% grade hill he routinely rides!

UberGeek

Not at all... But, when people consider 3 miles "Too far", and "I just don't feel like it"... That's laziness, no matter how you slice it.

Shy of one person, nobody has ever said to me they don't bike more because the streets are too dangerous. It's always a remix of "I just don't feel like it, I'd rather drive". That's laziness.

UberGeek

Like I said, whatever floats your boat. To me, it just seems, excessive. Again, whatever floats your boat.

genec

Here, I'll say it. I don't bike commute any more because it is too dangerous. I swim a mile in the ocean each day, so it is NOT about laziness for me. It IS about riding a bike on high speed arterial roads that are filled with cell phone using drivers that DO NOT pay attention. I bike in other safer areas, but I no longer bike commute daily.

I have bike commuted for nearly 30 years, longer if you consider my cycling to school as a young lad. I have done long distance tours. I am a very experienced cyclist. But the location of my office in amongst several high speed (50MPH) wide arterial roads and several recent close calls with cell phone idiots has changed my mind.

The road speeds are too high, there are no escape areas due to curbs and walls, and drivers are too aggressive and do not pay attention. (poor traffic layout causes high frustration in the motorists and they get very aggressive trying to go home) Experienced cyclists have been killed on my routes in recent years; it just adds up to too much risk.

A bike boulevard or off road path would make the difference for me... heck, a slower street would make a difference.

I have showers and inside bike racks at work. The ONLY reason I do not ride there is the due to the layout of the roads and traffic.

Oh and I am not alone in thinking this... there are other cyclists at my office that will not bike commute due to the traffic conditions... it is too autocentric.

spare_wheel

This is exactly why I always prioritize construction of a minimal infrastructure network over a few short and disconnected stretches of poorly-designed "world class" cycle tracks. Even in Portland, distal areas have absolutely no infrastructure. Not even one bleeding splash of paint. Its absolutely maddening to me that so-called advocates want to spend millions on cycle tracks in wealthy neighborhoods (that are already carpeted with infrastructure) while poorer neighborhoods get absolutely nothing.

RobertHurst

But the poor neighborhoods get all the refineries and whatnot, so they shouldn't complain.

genec

I can see your point... however the goal should always be to try to connect those routes... rather than achieving a disconnected patchwork of stuff that almost works.

I do agree that a bike highway that only serves one route may not seem the best solution, but I always envision such a bike highway to work just as the automotive highways... in that if it is well connected to to other streets/paths/bike boulevards, it provides a safe and fast route for commuters. The key is that such a bike highway has to be well connected. A cycle track through a park that has no inlets or outlets along the way is just a folly. (there are plenty of large city parks that have limited entrances and exits... Central Park in NYC and Golden Gate Park in SF are prime examples)

buzzman

Which of the potential solutions mentioned by Genec would fall under the classification of "minimal infrastructure"?

Bike boulevards?

Off road paths?

Or "street slowing"?

Or is there another minimal infrastructure you would recommend in the case he mentions?

Did I miss something but I don't see where Genec makes mention of the economic status of the area in question.

Here in Boston areas challenged economically have been made accessible by bike infrastructure and are often mentioned in terms of targeted areas for even more infrastructure. I live in an upscale area on the outside of Boston, Newton, which has minimal bike infrastructure. As I ride into Boston I don't get any kind of bike lane or sharrow until I get to Brighton and Allston, both communities have high student and immigrant populations and have higher concentrations of low income residents.

Fortunately, the disparity you mention is not as pronounced in either Boston or NYC, the two cities I commute in most regularly.

RobertHurst

Even in Portland ... Bike people were moving to Portland from all over the country before Portland got all excited about building bike infrastructure.