New design approaches
 

Good point; even if it all could be made to work well, we can't afford separate infrastructure for each class of traveler. New approachs to redesigning the infrastructure we have (such as Shared Space) which get rid of costly controls (traffic signals are especially expensive to install and operate), decrease trip times, virtually eliminate fatalities and reduce pollution will actually be less expensive (in the long term) than what we're doing now (as well as being more equitable).

We need a Smokey Bear for cycling.

"Only you can prevent road rage"

from the houston TX dept of public works....

"Houston offers a 345-mile interconnected bikeway network spanning across 500 square miles of the city. The network includes bike lanes, bike routes, shared lanes and bayou trails, rails to trails, and other urban multi-use paths. This network does not include 80 miles of hike and bike and nature trails found in city parks. "

Whoops! looks like you misrepresent, chipseal.

One of the things that makes Portland bikeable is greater housing density. They made a conscious decision to discourage sprawl through zoning which has meant more multifamily housing and smaller lots. That increased density can support more shopping and more jobs at much closer distances. With land being at a premium devoting vast amounts of space to parking is too expensive. If you have to pay directly, out of pocket, for your parking at your apartment, at work, and where you shop; biking starts to look better and better.

There's no free parking in Atlanta either. You just pay for it indirectly. I once read that by 2015 that the cost of roadway maintenance in the Atlanta area would be $1,000 per year for every man, woman and child.

I think what makes Portland such a great biking city is that it has many cycling lanes and MUPs (including some beautiful ones along the Willamette river), a bike-friendly city council, lots of excellent bike shops, and hoards of cyclists. It doesn't hurt that there are many scenic bike rides just outside of Portland too: the west hills, Sauvie Island, farmlands south of Lake Oswego, and of course, east towards Mt. Hood.

I lived in Portland for 15 years and commuted by bicycle on most days. It was great. I currently live in Geneva, Switzerland, and I must say, Geneva is quite a bike-friendly city too. My office has about 150 staff and in the winter, I usually see about 20 bikes in the bike rack. In the summer, that number is around 50.

A page or so away from that article is an article on my uncle, Doug Wiens PhD of Washington University St. Louis. I bought the issue to see his feature and saw the bike tidbit as well.

It's actually been shown that you can INCREASE the capacity of a four lane road by turning it into a three lane road (1 each direction, plus turn lane and expanded shoulders).
In any case, congestion on roads has been repeatedly shown to be a result of road capacity, rather than the other way around.

5000 bikes / 5 (months) / 20 (work days/month) / 2 (trips per day) = 25 bikes/day.

Hawthorn bridge sees 3000 bikes/day so I'd say no... the houston numbers don't mean anything, other than that they had an extremely low rate to start with.

Then again, I've never felt that the bikes on bus number signified much. Was the limiting factor the number of riders, racks, routes? You have no idea.

It's interesting to note that the city of Boston had a larger population in 1910 than it does today. Most of it's highway infrastructure was completed in the 1950's as Callahan and other Boston pols rode the autocentric post WWII highway tide and built freeways, highways and tunnels that sliced and diced the city. That was as the population peaked at around 800,000 in 1950. And then began the move away from the city with a concurrent increase of 383% of auto ownership and a huge swell in the number of autos in the city.

What's strange is Boston has about 35% fewer people living in it since 1950, roughly the same number of miles of streets and highways but an almost 400% increase in the number of automobiles.

We must either rethink the infrastructure in terms of design and "distribution" or somehow reduce the number of autos. Any more increase in the number of autos in a city like Boston will just create gridlock to the point where bicycling will be more attractive but only to those willing to weave in and around all the slow moving and stopped automobiles.