genec

I have no problem with car free urban cores built for peds and cyclists... I think it is a good idea... what I find abhorrent is the trend to make every inch of a city car accessible to motor vehicles at the near exclusion of people... this is evident in quite a number of ways... driveways that go right up to valet stations at the front doors of hotels, and yet there is no connecting sidewalk from the nearest street to the same entry. I see business in my area that have vast seas of parking lots (actually more land devoted to the storage of the car than to the business itself) that have made little provision for people to get to their business on foot... cyclists are also not served by the lack of bike parking and the threat of locks being cut if a cyclist uses a sign post out front... all these are subtle but firm dissuasion to anything but the motor vehicle... yet we accept this... but the concept of a car free zone... well that is just blasphemous.

One of the funniest situations I ran into a few years ago was an office complex with lots of walking area around the buildings to the entrance, but to get to that, you had to cross a busy entry road that lead to the parking structure. The whole design could have benefited by putting the entrance to the parking structure on the other side of the parking building and connecting the parking structure to the buildings with a curb-less walkway which would have allowed for delivery vehicles, without forcing every vehicle entering the parking structure to cross this sidewalk... but the architect didn't think of people, just cars. Then to top it off, across the street was a typical shopping mall... grocery stores, hair salons, and several restaurants... but to access all that, you walked down the wide sidewalks at the front of the buildings, crossed the perpetually busy entry driveway (that went to the parking structure), then to the public sidewalk, waited for the walk signal, crossed the 4 lane arterial road... only to find the only way in on the other side was either to cross the various landscaped berms or walk in the entry driveway... THERE WAS NO CONNECTION TO THE SIDEWALK AREAS INTO THE MALL FROM THE PUBIC STREET SIDEWALK. Most people chose to cross the landscaping... and there was a well worn and sometimes muddy path where this took place. It is that level of thinking that is a clear indicator of automobile centric thinking. Yet every one of us has to walk at some time or another... but this was totally overlooked in planning for complete connections for peds. Cyclists were not served in any way... no bike racks at all. (all they had to do was eliminate one or two automobile parking spaces for a bike corral where one could park a couple dozen bikes... 1 car spot is roughly equal to 10 bike spots). They had provisions for shopping carts... but not bikes... go figure.

I often walk around the area I now work... a large light industrial area of several square miles... filled with buildings set in vast seas of parking lots... each with similar problems mentioned above. It is quite obvious that peds have made their own provisions by the well worn paths and dug in step ways between these adjacent businesses... something that the architects/planners of the are failed to provide for. As a cyclist I have discovered that I can avoid some of the 50 MPH 6 lane arterial road serving the area if I just cross from parking lot to parking lot... on some of these worn dirt paths (that could have been made into a very serviceable perimeter separated bike path... had any forethought been put into that idea). Crossing the dirt paths works for me, as I use wide tires...

These are just a few examples of the thinking that focuses on the motor vehicle, over PEOPLE!

Dave Cutter

And..... so? Scream in their ear when they yell at you! Throw your water bottle back at them when they throw something at you. Duck when they swing at you... then lean in when you bust their nose with your fist! Grow a pair.... HTFU. Or... just take the bus.

No spin here! Innocent people are randomly killed everyday.... so do serial killers cause agoraphobia********** I admit the fear is real. But... where do you think fear originates from********** Motorists don't distribute fear. Even terrorist who make spreading fear their mission... are rarely successful long term. As most adults eventually realize they own their own feelings.

Look... cycling IS NOT for everyone. For some... cycling in traffic [or even on the MUP's] is just too scary. Others see simple things like... wearing helmets as a total waste that messes up their hair. NEATHER are wrong.

If you can't own-up and face your own feelings... you may not be cut-out for cycling in traffic. Cycling is active.... NOT passive. And no one... can change that.

genec

+1000

Seems to only work against the claims of cycling infrastructure... Odd eh?

genec

And here in the culmination of the thinking that keeps modal share in the US at less than 2%... Quote: Bicycling is not for everyone. UnQuote.

Well there you go folks... cycling is only for the special few... Now we know.

Dave Cutter

Interesting! Here is your chance to get ahead of the curve there.

Here in America we are seeing huge moves to Internet shopping.... and huge amounts of parking in America now goes unused. I am sure that same trend will spread to whatever country you live in.

Brick and mortar shopping is having a real hard time in America today. Although your post would have applied to our American city's as well.... just a few years ago. City living, downtown shopping, commuting (instead of working from home).... those old-fashion concepts have faded from the minds of most Americans. I am confident these are global trends that will be in your area soon as well.

Dave Cutter

Your words! What I said [more or less] is: Accepting fear.... is only for the weak.

You can continue to try... but I really wouldn't guess that you will actually increase cycling popularity by whining about how scary you think it is.

And here is the problem folks.... my thinking. Yes... my thinking is causing a physic block on the minds of all of America.... which is holding back the popularly of bicycles.

FBinNY 

Without getting into the politics or trying to define a utopian vision of how cities should work, this thread is basically about a chicken or egg question.

Do we change infrastructure in an effort to change travel patterns? Or do we adjust infrastructure to reflect the patterns that exist, then adapt them as patterns change?

I lean to the second.

Since I spent most of my life cycling in a so-called car centric world (and still do), I don't find it at all intimidating. In some cases it is pretty stupid, such as drive up windows at fast food joints, but it's up to the business to decide how to waste it's own space. IMO much of the traffic mixing problem can be improved through education, while infrastructure changes may be called for in specific areas or along certain arterials.

Like Dave C. I believe that bicycling isn't for everybody, so rather than trying to change the world, we should focus on ways to accommodate the needs of those who choose to ride. Then we can continue to adjust according to how people travel.

Dave Cutter

I don't think we need to get into the politics of cycling to realize that the infrastructure is just another failed (and corrupt) government program. I think some here... are too emotionally attached to the concept of a "bicycle centric world" to see the problems for what they are.

Everyday..... structures are built.... and structures fall down and are torn down. The MUP's are temporary... not iconic monuments.

The old fails, falls, dies. Many of the cycling enthusiast here want to use bicycles to solve 1934 era problems. Unfortunately.... those aren't the problems we face in 2013. Non-use... is the threat of todays modern city's. If you have desirable skills.... the type of skills traditionally used in downtown offices... why would you go downtown. Everyone knows most of those functions can be performed from home... or much smaller more efficient satellite offices. Record number of American Cities are in the courts trying to find solutions to their modern problems.

I don't know of even one problem faced by even one city.... that bicycling can solve. Let alone an unused path through some park.

buzzman

I'm glad we're finding some room for agreement but I still find your post disheartening for a few reasons.

1. At this point I don't know what you need to satisfy your resistance to the idea that building bicycle infrastructure will increase the number of bike riders in a given area. Several of us have provided bicycle counts from NYC and the Boston area in particular that clearly demonstrate a correlation at the very least if not a direct causal link. You, and some others, are not satisfied by bicycle counts, by observations by several of us who live in these areas who have ridden long before the infrastructure was implemented and still you dismiss it. Either in favor of vague "modal share" figures that seem even more shaky in terms of reliability and accuracy or because you somehow simply "know better".

Why is it that many of these urban bicycle facilities are becoming so crowded (the Minuteman Trail, The Hudson Greenway, The Paul Dudley White Path) that many cyclists move to riding the road because of too many cyclists? And why has Boston (which has added infrastructure) had more than a two fold increase in bicycle riding over the past 5 years while neighboring cities like Worcester and Springfield (which has little or no infrastructure) have had little or none?

2. What is the message you and Spare_Wheel in particular are sending out of the Portland area? Is it really, "don't bother building infrastructure it does not increase ridership"? Is it really, "infrastructure flattens interest in biking"? And is it, "bicycle infrastructure-'intimidates/maims/kills cyclists'? Is that what we, the rest of the country with our woefully low bicycling numbers can learn from you guys?

3. And how does an area increase bicycle ridership? Or is it even worth it to set that as a goal as many cities have? What do you propose to make cycling safer and to promote it?

FBinNY 

With respect, since we agree in general, this post is about as extreme as those promoting car free cities. Transport is an evolutionary process, and infrastucture will properly be adjusted to those changes as they happen. There's nothing wrong with changing road design, or allocating pavement space as needed to maximize through flow.

The question shouldn't be bikes vs. cars, but how best to make workable roads for the lowest cause. And since no matter what we do, there will still be mixed use roads, how best to make these safer.

I'd rather let the market drive the process than waste big dollars by trying to have the process drive the market.

Dave Cutter

I think we agree completely as far as markets and cycling infrastructure. Except... maybe with the idea that city infrastructure will be helpful for cities in the "big picture".

American cities have become hubs of impoverished masses seeking to be closer to government services. There was a period in history where that appeared to be sustainable through the revenues/taxes the cities collected because they were business hubs.

Today.... we are using the global business office/center... right now. And... we didn't have to drive, take a train, bus, or bicycle downtown to get an Internet connection. City's no longer serve the function or provide the value they once provided.

I am very sorry to expose this problem to anyone that didn't already know. I didn't think it was a secret. Our citys no longer work... they are dying.

buzzman

This is so blatantly an inaccurate statement I don't know why I am taking the time to respond.

Certainly there are cities that almost fit this description. Detroit, for example, except Detroit has no government services to offer from simple street light repair to police, fire and ambulance services. In fact, the poorest of American cites offer the least in government services.

Other American cities, like NYC, Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, Washington DC have become so expensive to live in that it is quite the opposite, hardly what I would call "impoverished masses".

Funny that the richest cities, the ones I've named above, are the ones adding bicycle infrastructure. Hmmm, could there be a correlation between income, lifestyle, quality of life and adding bike infrastructure? Or is it just government pandering to the impoverished masses?

FBinNY 

Cities aren't dying, they're evolving, and there's a big difference. We are moving from the concept of a downtown commercial/industrial center surrounded by bedroom communities, to a more homogenous distribution of residence and business, and in some cases a residential/cultural business core, surrounded by residential and commercial satellites.

No value judgement here, I'll leave that for the futurists, but it means travel patterns are likewise evolving, so it makes sense that urban infrastructure will evolve in response.

spare_wheel

Induced demand does not typically cause an overall change in mode share. As FBinNY stated above, induced demand applies when there is a bottleneck or limitation on traffic flow. Obviously, the improvement of the Queensboro Bridge Bike Path noted by SBinNYC is one of those situations.

The "build and they will come" slogan is typically used to suggest that building new infrastructure will result in an overall increase in mode share. I'm still waiting to see if proponents of separated infrastructu can provide evidence for an increase in mode share that can be correlated with installation of a network of separated infrastructure.

buzzman

So, if the Hudson Greenway or the Dudley White Path become so saturated, as they do on certain days, and the city added more paths or lanes to accommodate the bike traffic and more riders came and used those paths and lanes you do not feel this would be an increase to mode share?

What exactly are you using as your formula for "mode share"?

If what has already been presented in this thread does not satisfy you as "evidence" I think you may never be satisfied.

If you have the time and can read the post I made above to BCarfree I'd love to hear your response to some of the questions I pose to him.

Frankly, it's been a while since i've visited Portland and I had been encouraged by friends and what I'd been reading of the infrastructure of the city that it could serve as a model for making cites more habitable for bicyclists. But after reading your and Bcarfree's posts it's neither a city I would recommend to cyclists nor one I am that interested in visiting much anymore.

I teach at a college and because my students know me as a teacher who bikes everywhere I get to know the students who are interested in biking. As we talk about cities they might move to and start careers in Portland has often been one of the cities I would recommend. It sounds like it has hit its heyday as a cycling Mecca. It seems to have fallen prey to a kind of grumbling dissatisfaction and negativity-not a good sign for its future.

Seems like NYC, Boston, DC, Minneapolis, even Philly seem to have more enthusiasm and are less jaded than Portland. Is there anything left of Portland that would attract a bicyclist?

FBinNY 

An increase in pavement responding to heavy use and/or bottlenecks is different than what the OP originally asked. it's a reaction to proven demand, which doesn't address the question of whether it can drive demand.




I haven't been there in decades, but Portland may be an example of the need to be careful what you ask for, lest you get it. Or is could just be a city with an image that creates expectations, and attracts certain people, yet doesn't fulfill their dreams. There's lots of truth in the expression "XXX is a great place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there".

John Forester

I have never stated that "there really are many cyclists that are truly anti-car", which genec claims to be my standard argument. Since I have just recovered from being banned for truthfully describing genec's claims, I won't repeat that here. I simply state that genec's claims on such matters need factual support before being believed, and without such support they should not be believed.

Dave Cutter

Yeah.... I am an old guy myself. But the evolving that you describe... already happen in the 1960's. Here... let me check my watch... yep half past one century ago. But I think you're correct.... change is happening. Change is the one constant we have in life.

I am not up on what futurists think will happen to cities. Maybe.... they think the failed economics of centralized planning can all be saved my more **** alleys built along abandoned buildings and stinky rivers. After all... some think as long as a government agency builds it.... it will work (or they will come). Of course in my years of government... I saw billions of dollars in failed programs and structures (we all remember the A.F.s Nuclear Aircraft....right?) So... forgive me for not believing what I thought everyone knew was factually incorrect. Building it... does not make it work.

There isn't a major city anywhere that doesn't have new structures built on top of ancient ones. American city's will not be any different. But wrapping your head around a downtown paradigm and trying to force a plausible economic system into that ideal.... I'd like to know how that happens.

Buzzman mentioned Detroit. Maybe THATS what will bring back the motor city! Yeah that's the ticket. A few miles of bicycle paths through and around that [once] great city. Yeah... that will fix everything! Spend a billion or two on the worlds best bicycle path network and millions will flock back to MoTown to enjoy the simple utopia-city of the new (bicycle) age. Yeah... there's a plan for you!

But it's a silly plan! And we can all see that. But for some reason when we try to apply the same logic and reason the cities we do care about.... we lose our detached reasoning. Or... some of us do.


I know... as stupid as it sounds.... you must have thought I was joking!

FBinNY 

I hesitate to bring this up and maybe it should be it's own thread, so please consider the following a think piece for reflection rather than a jumping off point.

The OPs premise really begs a question or a few.

Before we worry about whether infrastructure increases modal share in an absolute sense, we should consider the goals.

For example how do we define success, or what are we willing to spend per additional rider. Even granting that we can show that if we build, they will come, we should consider how much is spent, and how many come.

We also should decide if attracting more riders is by itself a social good, and if so what it's worth. The assumption here on a bike forum is more bicycles is good, but how and why is it good, and what is it worth?

Lastly we need to think about why we're building infrastructure, to increase safety? or to drive a modal change. Again, depending on the objective, we need to define success, and set a cost benefit goal to measure by.

Policy isn't (or shouldn't be) driven by absolutes, but on balance priorities and allocating scarce commodities, pavement space, money, etc. wisely. It might be possible (not saying it is or isn't) that the money spent to change modal share might be better spent on education or something else.

From a purely selfish point of view, I don't believe increased bicycling beyond a certain level does me any good. It will increase the accident numbers (based on constant rate) increasing the level of government scrutiny which usually isn't a good thing. If segregation can be shown to reduce deaths (so far it hasn't) then I might support it to defuse calls for safety regulation.

As I said, this is big picture stuff, and I'm not suggesting answers (I don't have them), just the questions that we should be asking ourselves under the theory that we need to be careful what we ask for, lest we get it.

genec

Welcome back John. Oh and Merry Christmas. You have to admit that our wonderful So Cal weather in this holiday season is a grand invitation to go out for a bike ride.

My comment comes from your often touted claim of an anti-car agenda made to my pro-cycling stance. It is just that simple.

buzzman

Thank you, and I realize that it doesn't directly address the OP. It is in response to spare_wheels comments about induced demand- a concept which he introduced to the thread and I found of interest and possibly pertinent. I do think the OP did beg the question as to whether continuing to add infrastructure would increase the numbers of cyclists, which is why I find the theory of "induced demand" interesting as it may apply to cyclists.

After all, I lived in Brooklyn when there was limited bridge access to Manhattan for cyclists. As bridge access was added cyclists quickly filled it. More was added and they quickly filled that. Crossing the Manhattan Bridge at rush hour this summer by bike was like jumping on a moving train. Prior to all this infrastructure just not that many people who lived in Brooklyn rode a bike into Manhattan. Access was added and bingo, new cyclists. This seems simple to me. But it's getting clouded in all the other factors that create the demand and definitions of mode share versus bike counts and how those figures are derived. I suppose those details are worth it for the sake of argument but the pragmatic reality is that unless the infrastructure is there you just won't attract that many people to riding.

We could all continue to bat this around endlessly or we could move on to some of the questions you ask in your most recent post. They are not exactly on topic and may need a new thread but they are most certainly worth addressing. This thread is getting exhausting.

spare_wheel

I actually find this concept interesting too. I happen to live in perhaps the only major USAnian city with congestion-induced bike rage/fear (Williams and the Madison/Hawthorne bridge/approach). Both are about to get significant capacity upgrades with a brand-spanking new buffered bike lane for Williams and a new Bike/Ped/Bus/Rail bridge down river.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/7244260004/

https://bikeportland.org/wp-content/u...metbridge2.jpg


I expect that these two new facilities will have some effect on mode share, if only, because many newer/less experienced riders are distressed by the fast and aggressive flow of more experienced commuters.

FanaticMN

OK, I'll give it a shot.

Let's pick two cities, same climate, same geographical considerations, fairly comparable demographics, fairly comparable populations (390K vs 290K): Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Let's have one invest heavily (~$20M) in cycling infrastructure, including on and off street facilities, for five years, and the other, while not ignoring cycling, mostly ambles along.

Let's look at gender as well.

ACS data on Minneapolis, vs. St. Paul, 2005-2012:



Additional data from city counts is here, and more recent, less detailed data from Bike Walk Twin Cities, a bicycle advocacy group, is here.

Key dates:

2006 Midtown Greenway completed
2007 Begin Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program funding
2007 Sabo bridge opens
2011 Cedar Lake regional commuter trail completed
2012-2013 More focus on on-street infrastructure

The data is fairly noisy, and one might also note that the ACS data is sampled monthly, so that for our neck of the woods the actual numbers are very much higher during the summer and very much lower in the winter to get these averages.

Other context: I might argue, based on correlational data only, of course, that the initially higher rates of cycling in MSP were due to the main U of M campus (50,000 students; that hasn't changed much) and the greater abundance of park trails, such as the grand rounds..

John Forester

Much of this discussion of the relationship between bikeways and bicycle mode share occurs in the vacuum of ignoring the urban situations. There's little point in trying to compare Boston with Worcester and Springfield, because the two are very different from the one. The same situation applied to those parts of New York City that are implied in this discussion. One needs to consider the latent demand. The populations of Boston and Manhattan/Brooklyn are severely transportationally deprived, there is far too little capacity to satisfy the demand. Under those circumstances, provision of bikeways elicits bicycle travel, whereas, in those areas where transportation capacity is not so overloaded, the rate of increase is likely to be very small.

John Forester

Genec is now arguing that he, with his admittedly anti-motoring agenda, is typical of the American cycling population. Not only is that a rather grandiose claim, but I suspect that he has no statistics on which to base it.