Interesting comments on infra and VC

[James]

http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/

--
JS

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 3:37:42 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
> http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/
>
> --
> JS

Interesting article. Looks from a photograph well down in the article as if Montreal started out with a two-way single bicycle lane of the same kind we condemned in another city's plans a couple of weeks ago. Maybe we're not infallible. Actually, what was different in Montreal was a growing attitude.

From the comments to that article, Robert Gallup puts it well, though in a slightly different context (pointing out that vehicular cycling and separate facilities aren't the only two alternatives, as the slightly naive writer of the main article implies):
"Robert S. Gallup:
"Here is another thought experiment. What if, starting 40 years ago, instead of building bike lanes in Montreal, the criminal justice system put motorists in prison for killing, maiming or menacing roadway cyclists with aggressive or negligent driving? For the next 40 years, the roads quietly get more friendly for cyclists.
JUNE 17, 2016 "

'Course, the "criminal justice system" is just the will of the majority, with some time lag and a number of stictions because our democracies are now too large to be as responsive to the will of the demos as the village-sized Athenian model.

Andre Jute
We can change anyone's attitude. Eventually.

[jbeattie]

These articles are always so overwrought. North America did not buy into vehicular cycling -- as illustrated by the proliferation of bike lanes starting in the 1970s (at least). Forester objected to even ordinary bike lanes. About 30 years ago, ISTEA and other federal programs were already providing money for bike lanes and other infrastructure. 45 years ago, in 1971, Oregon passed the "Bicycle Bill" requiring reasonable amounts to be expended for bicycle facilities when roads were constructed or reconstructed. As Frank often points out, city planners are failing to heed the words of Mr. Forester.

Most US cities, however, did not have either the interest, money, land, topography or other circumstances that produced the desire for separate bicycle facilities ala Amsterdam or Copenhagen.

-- Jay Beattie

[SMS]

On 7/24/2016 7:37 PM, James wrote:
> http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/

Good article.

John Forester did a lot to set back bicycling in North America. It's
good to see that Montreal was smart enough to not buy into his theories.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/24/2016 10:37 PM, James wrote:
> http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/

It seems there may be a concerted push to pump out these segregationist
articles. We've seen several lately. And every one falsifies the
methods and objectives of vehicular cycling.

Regarding false objectives: They typically claim that VC has failed
because America doesn't have a bike mode share like Amsterdam. Yet mode
share was never a stated goal of VC. Instead, VC is intended to enable
real-world cyclists to operate safely and pleasantly on real-world
roads, the ones we now have. The opposite philosophy, "segregation
everywhere," is telling people they don't dare ride a bike until a
parallel transportation system is built. How is that promoting bicycling?

Regarding false methods: They portray VC as a teeth-gritting, high
speed duel with cars. It's nothing of the sort. It's primarily riding
in accordance with existing laws (at least, in every state I know
about), accepting your right to the road, and following the normal rules
for vehicles. Yes, there are other bike-specific techniques, like
watching the road surface, choosing the proper side of a lane depending
on your destination, watching for and dissuading motorist mistakes, etc.
but the main thing is just riding according to established laws, because
that's actually safe and legal. How is that irrational?

And macho? See http://cyclingsavvy.org/2011/05/i-am-no-road-warrior/

Admittedly, another part of VC is rejecting bad bike facilities. There
are anti-VC folks who actively promote door zone bike lanes. How is
that not crazy? And the current darling of the "Copenhagen everywhere"
crowd is the "protected cycletrack," almost always a two-way bike trail
siamesed onto a street. Yet Mikael Colville-Andersen, one of the
world's most prominent "Copenhagenizing" advocates, says those things
are nuts.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html

But, the article says, there's Montreal! Wow, a tremendous success story!!

... or is it? It's bike mode share is 2.4%, from what I've been able to
see. That must mean there are hardly any people driving cars any
more... if you're sufficiently innumerate, I guess.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

On 24/07/2016 10:37 PM, James wrote:
> http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/
>
>

I'm sure this will start yet another thread about VC and infrastructure.

The thing is, there are a lot of cyclists in Montreal. There are less
accidents to cyclists than the norm (probably a lot to do with the
increased numbers more than anything else.) And much of what VC
proponents recommend is actually illegal here. The law to keep to the
extreme right except when turning left or avoiding an obstacle is still
on the books and enforced.

What does all this mean? I think it means that the culture is different
here, more than anything else.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/25/2016 3:27 PM, Duane wrote:
> On 24/07/2016 10:37 PM, James wrote:
>> http://shifter.info/heres-what-happened-when-one-city-rejected-vehicular-cycling/
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm sure this will start yet another thread about VC and infrastructure.
>
> The thing is, there are a lot of cyclists in Montreal. There are less
> accidents to cyclists than the norm (probably a lot to do with the
> increased numbers more than anything else.) And much of what VC
> proponents recommend is actually illegal here. The law to keep to the
> extreme right except when turning left or avoiding an obstacle is still
> on the books and enforced.

So you have an enforced law saying a cyclist must _always_ keep to the
extreme right? Is that so no motorist is ever delayed, no matter what
the bicyclist is dealing with?

And your advocacy organizations work for segregation, instead of fixing
that blatant discrimination?

Wow. Some advocacy!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Andre Jute]

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 8:27:18 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:
> What does all this mean? I think it means that the culture is different
> here, more than anything else.

And it has taken half a century to get there. It takes a long time to change attitudes.

Andre Jute

[Duane]

+1

[James]

The mode share in Montreal is reportedly somewhere between 1.3% and 2.4%.

It's a little higher than Melbourne, and a little behind Canberra (and
Darwin that is not in the table).

Melbourne has a very small number of useful facilities. Canberra is
allegedly much better, but both suffer from helmet laws. Darwin has
relaxed helmet laws, and has some facilities, AFAIK.

We have never had a serious push of VC techniques and I think our mode
share would be better had it not been for the helmet law introduction in
the early 90's.

The helmet law helped to sway our road use culture away from cycling.

So I find it a little odd that Montreal is held up as a glowing example
of facility embrace.

--
JS

[James]

I'm certain our helmet laws have changed attitudes for the worse. It
may have only taken a couple of decades, or one generation.

--
JS

[Duane]

Well overall it's a bit fractured. In the city it varies by neighbourhood.
On the plateau where my son lives it's near 9% but it varies.

This is from a group pushing more infrastructure citing the areas with the
most infrastructure as having the highest mode share:

http://tram.mcgill.ca/Teaching/Policy_briefs/Policy_briefs_cycling_Montreal.pdf

Remember, this is a place with snow on the ground from November to March or
April.

But you're talking only about transportation. Recreational cycling is also
important to a government that supplies health care.

--
duane

[James]

I'm sure there are similar variations in our cities.

> This is from a group pushing more infrastructure citing the areas with the
> most infrastructure as having the highest mode share:
>
> http://tram.mcgill.ca/Teaching/Policy_briefs/Policy_briefs_cycling_Montreal.pdf
>
> Remember, this is a place with snow on the ground from November to March or
> April.

My experience of riding in subzero temperatures has been that provided a
rider is adequately clothed, it isn't terrible, and can be lots of fun.
Riding in extreme heat is worse. You cannot take enough clothing off
or put enough water in to be comfortable.

>
> But you're talking only about transportation. Recreational cycling is also
> important to a government that supplies health care.
>

I was comparing apples with apples. Melbourne, Canberra and Montreal
data is all about mode share. I suspect there is similar levels of
recreational cycling in each place as well.

Why has Montreal not gathered a higher mode share? I guess it is more
likely that car use hasn't been dissuaded adequately. If it is no
inconvenience driving somewhere a few kilometres away, parking easily
and driving back - most people wont bother to get off their lazy arse.

All the infrastructure has been provided for relatively fast and easy
car access. You can travel at 50-60km/h between traffic lights, and
there's plenty of parking at your destination when you get there. You
don't even need to wear a funny hat that messes up your hair.

Where's the incentive to throw a leg over a bicycle and ride?

My observation has been that Melbourne city centre has seen a steady
increase in bicycle use over recent years. Why? There are inner city
apartments built without car storage, and there has been little
additional car parking made available in the city CBD. Consequently,
driving in to the city is quite a chore. Most inner city employees who
live further out catch a train if it is possible. For those who live
very near the city, a bicycle has become a more reasonable alternative.

--
JS

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:33:19 PM UTC-4, James wrote:
>
> Why has Montreal not gathered a higher mode share? I guess it is more
> likely that car use hasn't been dissuaded adequately. If it is no
> inconvenience driving somewhere a few kilometres away, parking easily
> and driving back - most people wont bother to get off their lazy arse.
>
> All the infrastructure has been provided for relatively fast and easy
> car access. You can travel at 50-60km/h between traffic lights, and
> there's plenty of parking at your destination when you get there. You
> don't even need to wear a funny hat that messes up your hair.
>
> Where's the incentive to throw a leg over a bicycle and ride?
>
> My observation has been that Melbourne city centre has seen a steady
> increase in bicycle use over recent years. Why? There are inner city
> apartments built without car storage, and there has been little
> additional car parking made available in the city CBD. Consequently,
> driving in to the city is quite a chore. Most inner city employees who
> live further out catch a train if it is possible. For those who live
> very near the city, a bicycle has become a more reasonable alternative.

In other words, most people tend to make choices based on what matters to them
as individuals, at that moment, based on practical day to day matters.

No matter how much we might wish they included things like the environment,
improvements in personal health, improvements in society, or the sheer
beauty of bicycles, those factors don't seem pertinent to most people.

The infrastructure idealists don't get that.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

I might add that bicycle facilities just don't exist in much of S.E.
Asia, and my guess is that bicycle use is far higher than in the
"civilized world". Strangely we seem to get along pretty well without
any "bike facilities" at all.

I did a short ride this morning through Bangkok traffic, which is a
bit hectic during the week, and today had two very distinct cases
there either he (the auto) or I (the cyclist) had to stop or take
evasive action. In both cases we both stopped, sort of "nose to nose"
as it were. In one case the auto waved me past in front of him and in
the other I waved the auto past. The difference was a matter of
vehicle position, traffic, etc.

I don't mean that today was anything unusual, simply that I remembered
all the traffic. The point is that at least here the vast majority of
the traffic seem intent on not having a collision and will give way or
stop rather then to run you down.

Is it really so much different in America?
--
cheers,

John B.

[Duane]

The point was that the areas with the highest mode share are the areas with
the most infrastructure. I'm not arguing this. To me, these are the most
congested areas with the most traffic and the highest parking costs. They
are also the areas where the bike paths are plow end in the winter.

>> This is from a group pushing more infrastructure citing the areas with the
>> most infrastructure as having the highest mode share:
>>
>> http://tram.mcgill.ca/Teaching/Policy_briefs/Policy_briefs_cycling_Montreal.pdf
>>
>> Remember, this is a place with snow on the ground from November to March or
>> April.
>
> My experience of riding in subzero temperatures has been that provided a
> rider is adequately clothed, it isn't terrible, and can be lots of fun.
> Riding in extreme heat is worse. You cannot take enough clothing off
> or put enough water in to be comfortable.
>

It's not the cold that dissuades me. Its the snow. It's the salt, low
visibility and the cars sliding around on the not well plowed roads. These
conditions for half the year reduce mode share quite a bit. There are
still people riding in it, more so since they plow the bike paths. But
from where I live to where I work, it's mostly streets, some of which are
busy and most of which don't get plowed very regularly.

<snip>

--
duane

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:47:20 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> [...] most people tend to make choices based on what matters to them

> as individuals, at that moment, based on practical day to day matters.

That's their inalienable right, Franki-boy. To put it even stronger, people have a right not to be prescribed to by Stalinist levellers like you.

> No matter how much we

Who is this "we" that you claim to speak for? Who elected you?

> might wish they included things like the environment,
> improvements in personal health, improvements in society, or the sheer
> beauty of bicycles, those factors don't seem pertinent to most people.

Christ. What qualifies you to judge for everyone whether a bicycle is more beautiful than an automobile? Or for that matter that cycling makes the slightest contribution to the environment? We've just seen the shambles when a bunch of self-appointed "scientists" declared CO2 (tree food!) the No 1 enemy of mankind by an enforced "consensus", from the same self-serving hubris that you wield so ineffectually.

> The infrastructure idealists don't get that.

That's just the bee in your bonnet, pal. Vehicular cycling as an ideology is deader than the dodo, even as most of us practice some of its precepts without being dumb enough to let on to those we induct into the secret that it is an ideology.

> - Frank Krygowski

You'll probably jerk yourself up at the outrage to your dignity and not grasp that this is advice without price that I'm giving you. That's why you have so little effect on the world, Franki-boy. You don't even know what is good for you (to stay out of the face of your betters, not to stray from your very limited expertise, to listen when a real expert speaks) -- but instead you presume to know what is right and good for everyone else!

You wouldn't be so objectionable if you were merely a jerk, Krygowski -- there are enough of those in cycling already for you to be only a tiny pimple on the average, but it is too much that you're an idiot as well: those we just don't need in bicycle advocacy.

Andre Jute
Better Dead than Red

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 3:33:19 AM UTC+1, James wrote:
> On 26/07/16 08:24, Duane wrote:

All of this describes a very big change.

For information of the rest of you, Melbourne is one of the great cities of the world to live in. But, while there isn't snow for months as in Montreal, it can be cold and rainy, and the weather can be nastily unpredictable. Once, just walking to the Governor's Garden Party (in the summer, of course!) from my house in St Vincent Place, I got snowed on and sleeted on so that I was soaked and had to turn back to change and get the car. My leash of Borzoi -- see "Why I keep a hedgehog as my pet" at http://coolmainpress.com/ajwriting/1140/ -- were most disappointed, as they looked forward to the outraged faces of the local belles when they were presented to His Excellency before them.

Back in the early 'seventies I walked into the city in summer, if there was a summer shower hopped a tram home, and in winter drove in to a reserved space in the parking garage in the lane opposite McEwen's, and at decent speed too so that I often preferred one of my sports cars to the more sedate company XJ. Much more convenient than New York, where you could crawl for a couple of hours to make a few blocks and at the office hand off the car to a driver to take to a parking block beyond walking distance -- I slept at the company apartment in the Pierre a lot, because I was just too tired to make it to Connecticut, and eventually got an apartment in Manhattan as the least evil. By contrast, there was then plenty of parking in Melbourne; it certainly was never a pressure point. I wasn't a bicyclist then but knew one (my girlfriend's ex-husband) and he kept losing bikes in the city by being lackadaisical about locking them, so there was certainly enough interest in cycling for bike theft already to be a problem. A much bigger problem was the danger tram tracks posed to cyclists on the narrow tyres that were de rigueur back then, as his fellow enthusiasts were often in leg or ankle casts.

Note again the extended time period over which attitudes and practices changed: getting on for a generation and a half, a whole buncha new people on the scene. All for a few percentage points on the modal share.

One more point. In respect to automobile attitudes, Australia and Canada are probably closer to those in the US than any other country, though I've always found anglophone Canadians to be much more conformist and law abiding than the Australians. I'll leave Duane speak about the francophone Canadiens.

Andre Jute
Cosmopolitan

[jbeattie]

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

<snip>

> Admittedly, another part of VC is rejecting bad bike facilities. There
> are anti-VC folks who actively promote door zone bike lanes. How is
> that not crazy? And the current darling of the "Copenhagen everywhere"
> crowd is the "protected cycletrack," almost always a two-way bike trail
> siamesed onto a street. Yet Mikael Colville-Andersen, one of the
> world's most prominent "Copenhagenizing" advocates, says those things
> are nuts.
> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
>
> But, the article says, there's Montreal! Wow, a tremendous success story!!
>
> ... or is it? It's bike mode share is 2.4%, from what I've been able to
> see. That must mean there are hardly any people driving cars any
> more... if you're sufficiently innumerate, I guess.

If you build it, they will come -- but how many will come and at what cost? IMO, it's all a matter of distance and terrain. If you have a population that lives a long distance from where it works or difficult terrain (not flat), all the segregated bike facilities in the world are not going to increase the number of riders to any significant degree. There will be some increase, but at a great per-rider cost. You are then building facilities for primarily recreational purposes -- which is fine, but probably out of a different budget. That's why Amsterdam, Copenhagen and even close-in eastside Portland work so well -- lots of people living close to where they work and mostly flat roads, and in Portland, we rely mostly on bike lanes and traffic calmed streets with one MUP up the east bank of the Willamette.http://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/observing-portlands-bike-traffic-photo-essay-182506

-- Jay Beattie.

[Duane]

Hard to speak for 8 million people but I think Quebecers generally like
to at least think of themselves more like Europeans than North Americans
or anglophone Canadians. I'm not sure how often this is true though.

[Duane]

One would think that terrain is critical but in the case of Montreal,
the areas with the most cycling are around Mount Royal and that's not
flat at all. In fact the pro tour has an event going up and down the
mountain every year. I routinely get pissed at the hipsters on their
city bikes passing by me on the way up the hills.

[jbeattie]

Terrain IS critical, but it can be overcome by other factors -- like short distances and social factors, like hipsterism (young, hip population). We should develop an equation for city planners: D (distance) times T (terrain) divided by H (hipsterism) plus DUII minus Mormon missionaries divided by the number of rain days, times etc., etc. equals success of facility.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:a1776281-2afa-4d54...@googlegroups.com:

> One more point. In respect to automobile attitudes, Australia and
> Canada are probably closer to those in the US than any other country,
> though I've always found anglophone Canadians to be much more
> conformist and law abiding than the Australians.

"It's a fair cop, but society is to blame."

> I'll leave Duane speak about the francophone Canadiens.

Now /there's/ a way to madness.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Duane]

On 26/07/2016 1:18 PM, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:a1776281-2afa-4d54...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> One more point. In respect to automobile attitudes, Australia and
>> Canada are probably closer to those in the US than any other country,
>> though I've always found anglophone Canadians to be much more
>> conformist and law abiding than the Australians.
>
> "It's a fair cop, but society is to blame."
>
>> I'll leave Duane speak about the francophone Canadiens.
>
> Now /there's/ a way to madness.
>

lol.

[sms]

On 7/26/2016 9:24 AM, jbeattie wrote:
> On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Admittedly, another part of VC is rejecting bad bike facilities. There
>> are anti-VC folks who actively promote door zone bike lanes. How is
>> that not crazy? And the current darling of the "Copenhagen everywhere"
>> crowd is the "protected cycletrack," almost always a two-way bike trail
>> siamesed onto a street. Yet Mikael Colville-Andersen, one of the
>> world's most prominent "Copenhagenizing" advocates, says those things
>> are nuts.
>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2014/06/explaining-bi-directional-cycle-track.html
>>
>> But, the article says, there's Montreal! Wow, a tremendous success story!!
>>
>> ... or is it? It's bike mode share is 2.4%, from what I've been able to
>> see. That must mean there are hardly any people driving cars any
>> more... if you're sufficiently innumerate, I guess.
>
> If you build it, they will come -- but how many will come and at what cost? IMO, it's all a matter of distance and terrain. If you have a population that lives a long distance from where it works or difficult terrain (not flat), all the segregated bike facilities in the world are not going to increase the number of riders to any significant degree.

It also depends on what they would spend that money on instead? Heavily
subsidized, poorly designed, mass transit that even fewer people would
use to commute (like in the Santa Clara Valley)? More lanes on freeways?

As expensive as some bicycle infrastructure appears to construct, it's
peanuts compared to widening roads or adding lightly used bus lines.

[Andre Jute]

On Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 6:18:41 PM UTC+1, Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> Andre Jute <wrote:

>
> > One more point. In respect to automobile attitudes, Australia and
> > Canada are probably closer to those in the US than any other country,
> > though I've always found anglophone Canadians to be much more
> > conformist and law abiding than the Australians.
>
> "It's a fair cop, but society is to blame."
>
> > I'll leave Duane speak about the francophone Canadiens.
>
> Now /there's/ a way to madness.
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Thanks for the chuckle, Andrew. -- AJ