rydabent

While probably most people that post here have no problem with riding on streets, I think most will agree that protected bike lanes will get more people to ride bikes.

howsteepisit

Doesn't look like the "debate" over bike lanes is over at all. What give bloggers such implied authority? Its nothing more than a person with an opinion for gosh sakes.

squirtdad

I disagree

this seems to be a common argument. And it seems that cities are often focusing on the lowest common denominator cyclist.... the scared to ride on the street new cyclist.

I really don't think that protected bike infrrastructure will get significant numbers of people who are not now biking out of the car and onto a bike.

They might encourage people who do some biking on the weekend to try commuting or to go to more congested areas, but the are not a 'build it and they will come" panacea. they are part of a solution but only part.



What is also fogotten is that in the majority of situations (there are exceptions....maybe NYC) is that to get to the protected bike infrastructure, the cyclist will have to cycle on a less segregated roads, so the initial scared to bike barrier is still there

Also what is not mentioned is that often such infrastructure comes with a requirment to use it....which I think is a bad slippery slope setup and that it requires strict adherence to traffice rules for both cyclists and drivers, which is a problem on both sides

I maintain that there will not be a large movement to bicycles until it is in total more convenient that driving for the average person. More conventient includes, cheaper, easier parking, secure parcking, faster total trip, etc etc.

this is not going to happen without massive goverment intervention (i.e companies have charge for parking, business provide covered bike parking, greater gas pricess, etc )

so my expectation is that bike ridership as part of daily life vs weekend recreation will grow slowly.

genec

Tend to agree... if folks don't have a disincentive to drive, they will go the lazy route every time.

I do want to add one more thing to your list... connectivity... A bike path or bike lane here or there isn't enough... the routes have to be as well connected as the automotive freeway system, with no gaps. Any newer cyclist is going to follow those paths and look for connections and guidance on how to get to their desired location. As long as they face a disjointed system... an incomplete network, those cyclists will find frustration.

If we really want to encourage wide spread use of the bicycle, it has to be easy to do... as easy almost as sitting on a couch (you know, like driving...). Routes have to be well connected, parking has to work, destinations have to support cycling (just like drive thru restaurants) and driving has to be made a bit more difficult (no free parking, higher rates for fuel, crowded roads). Then and only then perhaps folks will dust off the bikes.

dynodonn 

Our local university clamped down on it's amount of parking spaces some time back, and I've never seen our regional transit system ridership as high as it is now. Bus bike racks where hardly used before the clamp down, now one is fortunate to access one when classes are in session.

GamblerGORD53

SO stale green lights are to blame for more Right hooks at bike boxes ?? Any half dim wit could figure out that it's because of the NO right turns on RED BS. How the hell is THAT dangerous. OH maybe it's beacause of goofs like Joey running red lights and runs counter to VC block cars at any opportuntity preaching. Last year we got one on a T intersection near the university. It makes NO sense. Beware if you are filtering and NOT beside trucks.

My main drag now has brand new bike lane stripes for about 3 miles, where it was seldom fully busy anyway. Half has reduced lane width where there are traffic islands. The other part had 4 lanes reduced to 3 with the middle for turns only. In the winter it is like that anyway. I think it is working splendidly for all users, with no lane change speeder opportunities. Far safer for peds crossing also. The bike lane is 4 or 5 feet wide, which is fine with me. I and 99.99 % of others ride TFFC 2 ft from curb anyway. I am also AOK with the design for cars to stay the hell OUT of the lane at right turns. Otherwise, how is it different from no BL and delivery blockage.???

We are close to a civic election now. All the candidates in my ward are dissing these efforts, these NIMBY dicks are SOL.
Other proposed routes have much parking on busy narrow residential streets, so are poor places for BLs.

Our likely new Mayor/ outgoing councillor and his wife are young and are major participants/advocates of cycling and public transport. They have about 12 bikes and 2 kids. I have chatted with him several times.

B. Carfree

A key aspect to the connectivity problem is what I'm going to call the "death trap and wait" problem. City officials will build the ninety or even ninety-nine percent of a bike route reasonably well. However, that part was the low-hanging fruit where shunting cyclists out of the way is advantageous to both cyclists and motorists. When there need to be some changes that will inconvenience motorists, the project just stops and some half-baked "solution" that requires cyclists to both wait extra amounts of time and be placed in a position of relative danger are the norm.

My small city has a classic example of this. We have bike paths along most of both sides of the Willamette river, with a few bridges to connect each side. At the north terminus, the bike path ends at an intersection which is basically on/off ramps to two freeways and the start of two roads (road going southbound becomes a freeway; road going westbound becomes a freeway; bike path ends at the northwest corner). Since the path comes in at an odd place, the rational solution is to just give it its own signal which, when green, is the only green light and forbids right-on-red. However, since this would occasionally cause motorists to wait as long as seventy seconds at the intersection, cyclists are instead forced to cross the intersection twice, and the second crossing creates some right of way confusion as the cyclists are crossing in a crosswalk (right of way as pedestrians even when mounted in OR), but then turn left into a bike lane before completing the crossing. Typical total wait time for cyclists at this intersection is two minutes.

Not surprisingly, most cyclists choose to ride contraflow on the sidewalk rather than wait for the second intersection crossing. They then encounter conflicts with motorists entering/exiting the next driveway (shopping center) and the next intersection (signalized shopping center).

buzzman

There is much in your post I could take issue with but I'll start with this false assumption. Why I say it is a false assumption is because I, like many cyclists with whom I have ridden over the years with some regularity, do not fit the profile of " a scared to ride in the streets cyclist" and we prefer the added and improved infrastructure. With over 40 plus years as an adult cyclist and hundreds of thousands of miles (primarily on roads without bike facilities) I find it weakens your entire argument when you begin with such a false assumption.

The bicycle infrastructure currently being added in many major cities is the result of years of advocacy and hard work done by persons who have not only been spending hours in town meetings, city halls, courting legislators and road engineers but riding their bikes in the very same cities they seek to improve.

Quality bike infrastructure is designed for all riders from the least experienced to the every day long term rider. Undoubtedly, the side benefit of added infrastructure is that new riders are attracted to it and that is certainly a part of the overall objective but to imply it is done so at the cost, detriment or as a sacrifice to the needs of more "experienced" riders is inaccurate, to say the least.

I-Like-To-Bike

I take issue with Squirtdad's pretentiousness in his insulting use of the phrase "lowest common denominator cyclist" to describe any kind of cyclist. Smacks of the same self righteous mindset of other self proclaimed Real, True and/or Serious Cyclists when discussing the "other" less worthy cyclists.

Maybe he will expound and provide the set of cycling standards required to qualify for a high, higher and highest denomination of cyclist.

squirtdad

Buzzman. I was responding to the statement "most will agree that protected bike lanes will get more people to ride bikes" and I do disagree with that statement

My comment "cities are often focusing on the lowest common denominator cyclist.... the scared to ride on the street new cyclist" was based on direct knowledge of discussions at city government in two local to me cities. The problem statement seems to be: How do we get people who are not bicycling of of cars and onto bikes?

I will grant you that the people not bicycling are probably two types, those who want to and are scared to ride and those who just don't want to. I don't think protected infrastructure will influence the first in any singificant way unless their entire path is protected lanes.

your example of you using protected infrastructure is not the same..... you already are a cyclist so you using the infrastructure is not more riders.

I maintain the any infrastructure that requires usage is a limitation for cuclists in general.

And any protected infrastructure that is not solely for bicycle use (like MUPs) is often subpar for any one but a very casual rider

Understand, I am not against infrastructure per se, but saying that protected is the best solution and will generate many new riders is not a statment I agree with

I think that infrastructure should be a matter of forrm follow function. Protected makes sense in dense busy urban, areas or along high speed arterials, Bikes lanes make a lot of sense in many broader applications (if I had to choose one infratructure it would be bike lanes), I still don't get sharrows, and at the bottom line as there well never be infrastructure at on every road, knowledge of ridng on the road and good traffice enforcement is non infarstructure infrasstructure so to speak

not any one of these will make a difference alone, but good network of appropriate infrastructure (no roads to nowhere) will help

gcottay

I too have the grand and glorious temerity to suggest one debate is settled.

Some settings allow for well designed separate cycling infrastructure. Some settings do not. It's time to give up the weary old battles and concentrate on current ones.

squirtdad

As noted in another post....this wording is based on direct knowledge of current discussion in two local cities. The problem statement seems to be: How do we get people who are not bicycling of of cars and onto bikes? The chief barrier noted is people being afraid to ride on the street. One city just responded to this by making it legal for adulst to use side walks.

How would you describe this other than lowest common denominator when designing a solution?

why is that pretentious? it is a statement of fact

buzzman

There seems to be considerable amounts of evidence to support that statement. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

https://www.bikesbelong.org/resources...on-statistics/


https://cycleto.ca/protected-bike-lanes/safety-ridership

https://www.activetrans.org/modeshift...ted-bike-lanes

buzzman

You make a good point. There were arguments here in BF's at the inaugural rollout of the Citibike share program in NYC with many pronouncements by the "serious" cycling set that all these newbies flooding the streets of NYC would be a catastrophe of salmon running law breaking nervous nellies creating a cyclist's nightmare.

Having been there for the first two months of the program and having just spent the day in the city today I can say, at least by personal observation, that Citibike riders seem to showing a level of competence at a par, if not above, the more "experienced" NYC cyclists.

I-Like-To-Bike

I would not describe people "who are not cycling" as ANY kind of cyclist. Period.

Nor would I attach a derogatory label of "lowest common denominator" on cyclists whether they are "new" or "scared to ride on the street" or both.

Very much smacks of the attitude taken by some self proclaimed High Denominator Cyclists (i.e. experienced cyclists who claim to never have a concern when cycling on any road, street or highway, who also glibly describe less worthy cyclists (in their eyes) as suffering from cyclist-inferiority phobia, complex, or superstition.

B. Carfree

It must be nice to have public input considered in a meaningful way. Here on the West coast, at least in the cities I have been in, that's not the way I have seen the infrastructure changes come about. It's always been a top-down process where the roads department staff decides they want something, usually something that is currently being touted as the newest great thing, and they find a site to drop it in. They are often required to hold public meetings, but it is apparent to all that the outcome is already decided.

Not surprisingly, such an approach leads to exactly the problem Genec remarked on, continuity. So, to deal with that, the newest great thing is to have a bicycle and ped master plan. Of course, these plans are aspirational with no details or time lines and basically boil down to more of the same approach, but with another level of justification to use when convenient.

noglider 

The debate has ended: slavery is wrong.

The debate has ended: the world is not flat.

rydabent

While bike lanes have been proven to work, the deal is not settled. There will alway be egotistical drivers that think streets and road are there for the sole use of cars.

spare_wheel

So...some "bikes belong/people for bikes" propaganda (lifted from copenhagenize) and a few safety citations. Your definition of "considerable" must be non-standard.

I think there is more historical evidence that increased mode share drives infrastructure than the other way around.

buzzman

I thnk this argument has been knocked back and forth in A&S ad nauseum and I have scant desire to keep this ball in play with those posters, who, after llterally years of threads on the subject, are unconvinced that bike infrastructure is a precursor to an increase in the number of people on bikes in a community.

As far as your post, if my definition of "considerable" is "non-standard" due to the sites I posted citing evidence to support my POV then I would counter that your definition of "historical" must be "non-existent" since you provide no evidence, other than your own contention, that increased mode share drives infrastructure.

Not that there may be times when mode share does drive infrastructure in both positive and negative directions. But the point is that the "if you build it, they will come" strategy has been proven time and time again with bike infrastructure. As I said, at this point if there are those that simply cannot or will not accept this fact because it somehow doesn't fit their world view there is little I can do to dissuade them of their entrenched opinion. How or why such strict adeherence to that concept serves you I have no idea but if it's somehow working for you then hang in there.

noglider 

Well put, buzzman. I'm a little worried now about our future mayor, because he isn't as pro-bike as Bloomberg is.

buzzman

I am in NYC for about 3-4 months of the year and so I am invested in a pro-bike administration. I will keep my fingers crossed and support all efforts to maintain and improve infrastructure there.

Back in Boston, on the other hand, it was almost comical during the mayoral candidates primary debate as each candidate fought to appear more pro-bike infrastructure than the others.

It was obvious from the debates that the pro-bike stance of the current mayor has been popular with merchants and residents of the city of Boston. It is less popular with the auto-commute crowd from the outer suburbs that come into the city daily and scramble about trying to get to parking lots and get out as quickly as possible- for them it means fewer parking spaces and they somehow have the impression bike traffic is slowing them down- despite all evidence to the contrary. Fortunately, they don't get a vote for the mayor.

noglider 

When you're in NYC, give me a buzz, and we can go for a ride. Or just come for cake and coffee.

When you're driving a car, it's obvious that the cyclist in front of you is slowing you down. This is an important point, especially because it's false. But it sure does seem true.