Note that roads without any stripes exist - including relatively large roads after they are paved but before the stripes are repainted - and their most notable characteristic is relatively slow and careful driving.

Yes.... b/c nobody knows where to drive due to lack of lanes. Motorists need a visual cue that isn't the edge of the road surface to gauge their movements and distances. As well the lines help keep the poor buggers on the road at night.

Surely you realize that NYC, particularly Manhattan, is a most atypical US city. So far as transportation is concerned, the Mahattan Borough is the extreme outlier among US cities. The fact that transportation is done differently there does not invalidate insights derived from the conditions in most of the rest of the nation.

This is an absurd statement. Thousands and thousands, hundreds of thousands, of cyclists have cycled millions of miles on two-lane roads with speed limits over 45mph, without any significant systemic problem.

True... I myself have toured on such roads... that were lightly traveled by motorists... The same situation on heavily traveled roads will not work well at all.

and surely you realize that California is not New England nor is it the Northwest. How would you describe a typical American city? Are Los Angeles and San Francisco identical in terms of their needs for cyclists? They're both cities in CA but my experiences riding a bike in those two cities is as different as riding in New York City and West Palm Beach.

I've noticed when you refer to typical American cities you seem to be referencing Sun Belt or Southwestern or particularly Southern California cities. when you say "most of the rest of the nation" you seem to be talking about Southern CA. Wouldn't you say that Chicago has more in common with New York City than with Los Angeles in terms of transportation infrastructure? So is Chicago also atypical? You've also in previous threads told me Boston was atypical because it was a "trolley" city.

Now here's what's interesting to me about New York City. It has a population of roughly 9 million people in an area that a good cyclist could ride from end to end of in an hour or so. Almost 1/25 of the entire US population lives or works in New York City. So what happens in New York effects an enormous share of the general population and what presently constitutes a very large number of cyclists and potentially a much larger number.

If cycling becomes a mainstay of NYC transportation, and it looks very much like it will, then it will effect America and every other American city. Although some of the infrastructure models will undoubtedly be duplicated in other cities more importantly it will be evidence that bicycling can affect both transportation and quality of life issues in densely packed urban centers.

You claimed in another thread that cities are not "designed" by people that in a sense they are designed by market forces. NYC has a Bicycle Plan woven into a very distinct design plan of an overall transportation and urban design plan. It has a new and quite radical head of the DOT, who is a daily bike commuter in the city. Her influence and the administrative team she has surrounded herself with are making rapid changes to accommodate a larger modal share of cyclists. A coalition of cycling, pedestrian and neighborhood groups are likewise involved. Do you honestly think that the changes in NYC will not impact almost every other large urban center in America? That these changes will be considered "atypical" and not appropriate in any way to other cities?

You are cherry picking a sentence to quote out of context, apparently status quo when there
is no real bicycle experience available to back up a statement.
Why would you even take the time to put that up ?

Re: cycling congested 45 mph. two-lane roads

I have occasionally wondered what the scenario would be like on my commute, which has a number of 35 and 45 mph two-lane roads with no shoulders or bike lanes, if there were a significant increase in cyclists on those roads. This is of course speculation.

If they all cycled in a manner similar to the way I ride, as long as they didn't ride two or more abreast, I think it would be manageable. Of course, there are some very narrow, congested roads that even one cyclist might cause a significant backup on in rush hour, so I use alternative routes, of which there are many of the two-lane variety.

Most cyclists I see cause no significant delays during rush hour when I ride. As a matter of fact, some of the more impatient motorists, who guage their commute time by how fast they can jump from one light to the next, may be suprised to see me overtake them and leave them behind in the congested morass.

A very large portion of the roads in the US are narrow two-lane roads with speed limits of 45 mph or more. Cyclists have been cycling on these roads ever since the bicycle was invented. I think that my statement of numbers of cyclists and miles traveled is conservative. I did not cherry pick a statement out of context. The statement is certainly false.

well said, buzzman. Are you sure YOU'RE not the transportation engineer, and john forestor is just pretending he is? John's lack of vision and inability to assess trends and patterns in transportation engineering virtually disavow him.

buzzman, you've got my vote, too.

You question my characterizations of cities, now suggesting that Chicago has a transportation infrastructure more similar to that of New York City than that of Los Angeles. Well, of course it does. That's been recognized by transportation professionals for decades, as I know. But so what? Just because I did not enter the name of Chicago as a typical streetcar city doesn't mean I didn't know it, and the issue is irrelevant to our discussion.

Now you remark that cycling in San Francisco is very different from cycling in Los Angeles, and offer other comparisons. Well, sure, the same comparisons go for motoring as well. And for using mass transit as well. But, so what? The traffic skills required are the same in all these places. If you have the traffic skills to ride in San Francisco you have the traffic skills to ride in Los Angeles, and vice versa. Cyclists have no more needs in one place than in the other, either.

You remark that NYC is very large and very dense, so that what it does will influence the rest of the nation's cities. You evidently do not know that Los Angeles area has higher population density than does NYC area. As for the influence in the rest of the nation, the most outstandingly different of NYC's transportation infrastructure is its subway system, and that has not progressed very far in other cities since the automotive age began. San Francisco's BART and the hardly begun Los Angeles subway are the only examples that I know of. So, NYC's habits do not necessarily travel well to other places.

You claim that NYC has a bicycle component of its transportation plan. Again, so what? Since that is a requirement to obtain federal funds in the transportation area, every major area has such. You also claim that this bicycle component is being strongly supported to accommodate a larger modal share of cyclists and you speculate that "If cycling becomes a mainstay of NYC transportation" then the rest of the nation will be affected.

Bicycling a mainstay of NYC transportation? Most unlikely. People quitting using the subway to ride a bicycle? Rather unusual, that, in NYC. Although, in many other places mass transit is so bad that such a switch would make some sense. Manhattan's problem (and I think that the problem is largely limited to Manhattan and the areas across the East River) is that it is so attractive a workplace that people daily motor to and from there under extremely difficult conditions. What proportion of those who choose to motor under such difficult conditions would choose to cycle instead, no matter the number of bikeways installed in Manhattan? Or, for that matter, the number of bikeways installed on Long Island? I suggest that the proportion of such switches would be very small.

Well, yes, of course. But you are here introducing the problem of congested roads that need to be widened, which is a far different subject than is cycling.

wha?

I don't want to get in the middle of this but... the attitude reflected here is what will guarantee that any progress will be slow or nonexistent if the bureaucrats think that even dedicated cyclists are naysaying. How can one be so confident of failure?

You refer to progress as if that were some specific act or event, without, of course, saying what you consider progress to be. As I have written, I think that it is most unlikely that a system of bikeways in Manhattan will persuade a transportationally significant proportion of those who drive daily to Manhattan to switch to bicycle transportation. I think that this applies also to bikeways extending into Long Island and New Jersey. If you have some evidence as to the advantages, to the population of travelers, of making such a switch, then provide it. Otherwise, I think that plain transportation evidence of miles and time from the two current modes of motoring and using mass transit shows that only a small proportion of such travelers would find bicycle transportation more useful than their current modes. And, I point out, the object of the bikeway program is not to reduce mass transit use, but to reduce motor use.

Isn't it a moot point? Less cars, more bikes... = win/win. London has seen an explosion of cyclists since the inception of the congestion tax. I don't see why people wouldn't abandon mass transit for cycling. Seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I explained my position very concisely in post #100.

Cherry picking, comparing bike lanes to sailors and swimming pools
Like arguing with a 12 year old.....The dog ate your ability to reason ?

But the statement in question is not from post #100.
Without taking that context into account, Forester's interpretation is quite reasonable.
That's the problem with these discussions. Everything goes through two error-prone processes of translation.
First the writer imperfectly translates his thoughts into words, then the reader imperfectly translates those words into his understanding of the writer's meaning. Often, context is not conveyed properly. Then the reader becomes a writer and two more error-prone translations are engaged. The result all too often: disagreement based on basic miscommunication. This is a perfect example.

Get off the ride and leave the park.

We were discussing New York City and its program and prospects, not those of London. The two cities are very different. However: ...

Quite clearly, you who are quite clearly not paying any of the costs of the endeavour, consider this to be a winning trade-off. But what right do you have to do more than expel a bit of irrelevant hot air?

Again, quite obviously, there are winners and losers in the urban motor-vehicle congestion tax system. How about the motorists who pay the tax? Do they consider the slightly greater ease of motoring supposedly produced by the tax good value for money? Those who do presumably consider themselves to be winners. However, I doubt that this is a large proportion of those who continue to motor into London, the portion that consider themselves to be losers. How about the motorists who now find themselves pushed by economic necessity into cycling instead? Since they preferred motoring to cycling, they would consider themselves to be losers. The same would be true of motorists forced by economic necessity to take mass transit. How about businesses in the affected area? In general, one would think that the congestion tax makes the taxed area less attractive for businesses, raising the attractiveness of moving outside the taxed area. In short, encouraging sprawl. How about those who reside in the taxed area (I don't know how many these are)? They might find local living somewhat more attractive than before, provided that their jobs remain, but if their jobs go out, they would clearly be losers. How about landlords? I suggest that owners of business property would see a decline, while owners of residential property might see a rise.

Remember, just as in the case of New York City, the problems are caused by the enormous relative attractiveness of the urban center for commercial and other activities. Anything that reduces that relative attractiveness will reduce the economic and social power of such urban centers. Maybe a good result, maybe a bad result. But there will be winners and losers, as in any such change.

Yes we are speaking of New York....however, here's a special tip for you.... you can stop being so damned inflexible and literal. Down right insulting for the most part because you have nothing to hold your nonsense up with.
"But what right do you have to do more than expel a bit of irrelevant hot air? "
I may ask the same of you and your disciples. Relevancy being rather difficult for you lot. I know a whole world is kinda big for you boys to wrap your head around, but New York has watched with great interest the goings on in London as have my city Toronto. Welcome the The World. JF. Sorry but your pathetic excuses, attempts to sidetrack and trying to keep people on the back foot constantly is frankly becoming maddening, because when none of you bunch can explain the logical leaps of faith you pass daily as dogma, all I read are... "you didn't understand, whereas I haven't seen even the beginnings of a hint of willingness to listen to ANYTHING anyone who isn't a VC zealot passes to the board. Even after last year's entertaining revelation that your boy HH didn't grasp the concepts in the book he was selling (figuratively), there isn't one iota of evidence that maybe, just maybe you cats might have realized that being slightly a little more willing to listen, a little less arrogant and insulting , you just might find folks being more willing to listen. Seriously don't you get tired of deflecting questions you have no real answers for other than "You didn't understand", and "I'm sure that not what I meant?

I would suppose we all have em., opinions that is. The parallel between the two is obvious as anyone with half a brain can see. The objective is to reduce the number of motorists clogging the roads in the city by creating a taxation system that will either make driving into the city financially imposing as opposed to being a blank slate where the city and it's residents pay for all the repairs that the masses of out of town workers make necessary with the constant crushing of the roadways. If you live in the city and you drive to work, the congestion tax will hopefully put you on the bus, tram, streetcar, or a bike. Nobody cares... just get out of your car, and use the urban transportation that is provided. Out of towners, can drive to the edge of the urban centre and transit in to the core and not be dinged. More folks on transit, less cars on the roads, less road damage , less funds required to fix them. Cars do not necessarily sink or float a cities economic viability, but the ability for deliveries to be able to come and go sure do. In some instances the opposite is true and the massive glut of cars on the streets choke the core to a standstill. People can't get to the shops, the pollution from gridlock is insane, and nobody is happy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/..._feature.shtml
Here's a link... maybe you can read up on something not mired in double talk and diversion. Oh and it's not thirty or forty years old so welcome to the 21st century.

"Remember, just as in the case of New York City, the problems are caused by the enormous relative attractiveness of the urban center for commercial and other activities. Anything that reduces that relative attractiveness will reduce the economic and social power of such urban centers. Maybe a good result, maybe a bad result. But there will be winners and losers, as in any such change."

Problems are caused by automotive carte blanche access to the fun world of the city's cores, leaving the city's tax base to pay for wear and tear on the infrastructure it doesn't use. Yes John, winners and losers everywhere all the time. Why are the motorists always the winners in your world?

"How about the motorists who now find themselves pushed by economic necessity into cycling instead?"
I would hazard a guess they are three cheques away from being homeless. If your life is so thinly margined financially you should sell the house, give up suburbia and move into the city and live where you can afford to live, because you've obviously been living outside your means.

Oddly London seems to feel they've all won. Less traffic, less damage, more cyclists, more interaction with the city on transit, less pollution (and by extension less draw on healthcare/healthier people(less asthma in city born kids). In the end it's for the good of everyone that cars not be allowed to choke the life out of a city.

I've been told to stay out of this subforum b/c "they'll make you nuts man", after a couple years I'm beginning to believe they might have had something. It's amazing how everything is the riders' fault, the motorists don't need to be taught anything, etc etc. So much of what you spout my 20 plus years of daily traffic riding says your up the wrong tree, but you can't engage in ANY form of actually discourse/debate that within a few posts someone doesn't get what you are trying to sell, or your insulting them. BUT over the past couple years I have also seen you, HH et al ,completely and epically fail to convince anyone that posts here that you are preaching truthiness.

Might want to google around a bit to dispel some of these myths about congestion pricing in NYC (and London). You seem hint at the 'commoner' approach to the congestion pricing scheme (a tax on the working stiff) - when several studies have confirmed that working stiffs in NYC walk, bike, and take transit, and the upper earning folks drive in, often from the upper east side and suburban (wealthier) NJ. Why is it that a small number of people (who do not live in the area) can daily take over a greater amount of surface area of the public domain (street use for personal cars and trucks) than the majority? Shouldn't there be more room for the majority? Most people get around in Manhattan as pedestrians, transit riders, and to some degree cyclists - why the land grab by the auto had gone unchallenged this long amazes me...


Care to project out to the winners and losers of our current design debacle of suburbia when energy use reaches a threshold where it makes more sense to live close to basic services rather than to drive all over the place? The 'common man' is going to be screwed (and probably already is by the looks of the housing and credit crunch, with heating oil rising, and fuel going every week - the joy driving to the big box store for a palette load of smokes and cheese whiz starts to hurt...)

Ive tried to use my past Vermont experience to convince people slamming the working
class has only contributed to what we suffer now in the USA.

My current West Palm Beach experience is an unpleasant lesson in greed and selfish
overindulgence gone wild. There are more HUMMERS and Caddy type cars per
square mile here than I have ever seen in any rural area where people routinely
drive 15 miles to a job or get a quart of milk, etc.....A luxury tax on people who can
afford to sit in mall traffic and idle HUGE V8 powered Look-at-me cars would be more
appropriate than slamming the already overburdoned Datsun driver. A huge tax on
vehicles that dont get 30 mpg might help too....a graduated fuel cost ???
Same with motorized Yachts and Jet Skis....Really, what is the need for this stuff ?

I'm fairly certain we'll be schooled in why we don't understand this issue quite soon.