Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

[Frank Krygowski]

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/3/16/a-naturally-bike-friendly-town

I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly great
bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had lots of
infrastructure. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more than you
can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment will
naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a
fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim McNamara]

The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are
rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but
does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats on that. I am
doubtful but I could be wrong.

[jbeattie]

For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].

Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west of the West Hills.

Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes unless it is flat, placed near town or some work destination, the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/bike-traffic-in-portland-on-the-first-day-of-summer-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/3/16/a-naturally-bike-friendly-town
>>>
>>>
>>>
I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
>>> Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's
>>> truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before
>>> they had lots of infrastructure.

They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure.
That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days
people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only
the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic
example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike
infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling.

IOW if you don't build it they'll leave.

Change the culture. Create
>>> cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then
>>> the built environment will naturally follow."
>>>
>>> I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending
>>> a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.
>>
>> The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people
>> are rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing
>> cyclists, but does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats
>> on that. I am doubtful but I could be wrong.
>

There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular
Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure
has phenomenal growth:

https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling-growth-nyc-1.17556903

It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for
restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow.

> For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and
> riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a
> suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I
> have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me
> how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the
> rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in
> an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I
> would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the
> weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].
>
> Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the
> rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then
> this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives
> seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good
> with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west
> of the West Hills.
>
> Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes

> unless it is flat, ...


Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which
were all quite hilly.


> ... placed near town or some work destination, ...


Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head.


> ... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous."


Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in
the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


> ... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know.


That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders
object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not
wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does.


> ... She's

> afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
> https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/bike-traffic-in-portland-on-the-first-day-of-summer-photos-55300
> BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
> excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks
> will never ride.
>
> Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will
> bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in,
> it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and
> are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the
> young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big
> engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's
> not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular
> basis.
>

It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen
other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not
foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial
garage queen owners.

I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike
paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's
just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if
there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[Frank Krygowski]

Joerg, you have convinced "some" to start riding again. Wonderful - but
how many is "some"? Did you get the local bike mode share above 10%?
Above 3%? No, "some" probably means three people rode their bikes for a
while. Odds are they will soon find something else to do.

Let's recall that despite all the rah-rah news tied to the thousands of
various bike facilities built in the past decades, bike mode share is
still microscopic:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/05/08/bicycle_commuting_still_not_that_popular.html

Let's recall that during the years when a lawsuit prevented almost ANY
bike construction in San Francisco, cycling still rose in popularity as
much as it did in cities that were painting their roads green and
shuttling cyclists into chutes. It was fashionable to ride, so people
rode. No infrastructure necessary.

And lets recall that fashion is powerful but temporary. The current
increases in bike use are not as great as the surge in the early 1970s.
These modest increases are probably tied more to trendiness than to
weird segregated facilities. And the trendiness may last no longer than
the tie-dyed bell bottoms, disco, cabbage patch dolls or fidget spinners.

I think those who love riding bicycles will ride. Everyone else will
travel by the most convenient method available. Some of those "others"
will be on bikes, but in a country where people drive over 25 miles on a
typical day, most won't give up the car for the bike.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[jbeattie]

I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to go for a fun-ride. We're talking about transportation facilities that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat and putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes, although the facilities can be overrun by walkers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking or driving, particularly on Manhattan.

In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3) Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities, and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

That does have serious health benefits. People will truck their bikes as
long as there are no routes to the trails that they perceive as safe.

I am also talking about people riding to an evening in town instead of
taking a cab, Uber or Lyft. That is what happened in Manhattan and also
here in Folsom. It reduces vehicle mileage. It does not matter whether
it's their own motor vehicle or someone else's, pollution is pollution.


> ... We're talking about transportation facilities
> that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat ...


It was clearly not flat after putting in the bike infrastructure, as
evidenced. Naturally, any benefit will eventually plateau if either no
more bike paths are built or nearly all people willing to cycle use
their bicycles. In America that's never going to be a large percentage,
as has been evidenced by your elevator talks.


> ... and

> putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes,
> although the facilities can be overrun by walkers.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking
> or driving, particularly on Manhattan.
>

In NYC it's the same in a motor vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WiJgI3N4A

A typical sign of a space crammed too full of people and one of them
many reasons I will never live in a large city. Beither will my wife and
she grew up in a huge metropolis.

I can't sing like the guy in the video but I have a few train horn
tracks on my MP3 player. Does the job, gently. Once I couldn't resist.
Two girls were walking on singletrack at a section next to old railroad
tracks. One of them walked on a rail so they could talk. I rode up very
quietly and then turned on the MP3 track with the big Union Pacific
locomotive sound, including horn. There hasn't been a large train since
the 80's but the reaction was priceless.

> In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the
> facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the
> riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3)
> Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in
> PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities,
> and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if
> you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my
> speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.
>

Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you start
with a very low number cycling never gets started. For example, I
regularly cycle through this underpass and then with the lights on full
bore and at max speed. Even very seasoned local cyclists refuse to do
that. Except for one of them they all took the "chicken exit", riding
slowly on the side walk. Of course that is technically illegal but also
a major hassle when coming from the other side as there is only a
sidewalk on one side. Just one example of many.

[Joerg]

Sorry, forgot the link:

https://goo.gl/maps/avgYWtt9f4C2

[jbeattie]

Facilities in some places will increase ridership -- but determining the effect of the facility on the increase is really hard. There are billions of riders in the new south waterfront cycle track that weren't there 30 years ago. Nobody was there 30 years ago except me and some crack-heads, back when it was a pot-holed road through a warehouse district and former shipyard. Now it is a massive condo development -- a pop-up mini-city for the hipster urbanites. I think it is blight and preferred the empty, rutted road, but now it's crawling with people, streetcars, buses, aerial trams -- and cyclists.

On the other hand, millions were spent on the HWY 205 bike path, and I never see anyone riding out there or way out on Burnside in the pin-head region. You can put in awesome facilities, and the locals won't give a sh** if they're a bunch of mullet-heads tossing 40 ouncers out their car windows. You have to have people who want to ride. I only ride those facilities when I'm getting out to the Gorge. It's nice having them, but not much ROI.

-- Jay Beattie.

[jbeattie]

"Flat" meaning topographically flat.

Except that it did in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that busy and there were and are alternative routes through the neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural roads with no shoulders.

Again, I'm not against infrastructure. It has its place, and its particularly valuable if there are no usable roads or where there are lots of bicycles and it relieves traffic pressure. Bikes are traffic, and having a lane for bikes moves traffic.

But putting in bike lanes did not create the bicycle traffic in Portland, at least not initially. Facilities are now necessary just to handle the volume, and the bike lanes and other facilities undoubtedly brought out some more cyclists -- but figuring out who those are would take some effort and not just guessing. I much preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes. I would settle for a wide shoulder, though. It really makes no difference to me except that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-25 07:37, jbeattie wrote:
> On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote:

[...]

>>> In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and
>>> the facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings
>>> out the riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood,
>>> and (3) Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the
>>> culture in PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are
>>> zero facilities, and the cyclists just take over -- which is
>>> really frustrating if you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I
>>> at least try to keep my speed up. Many dawdle with their
>>> eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.
>>>
>>
>> Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you
>> start with a very low number cycling never gets started.
>
> Except that it did in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a
> surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young
> creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that
> busy and there were and are alternative routes through the
> neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary
> roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural
> roads with no shoulders.
>

I trust your judgment since you seem to live there long enough but the
stories in publications sound differently (for those on low BW
connections, this is an 11MB PDF file):

http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=217489

Quote "The accelerating growth in bicycle use validates Portland's
"build it and they will come" approach to bicycle transportation".

> Again, I'm not against infrastructure. It has its place, and its
> particularly valuable if there are no usable roads or where there are
> lots of bicycles and it relieves traffic pressure. Bikes are
> traffic, and having a lane for bikes moves traffic.
>

Yes, bikes are traffic by most cyclists do not feel safe inside fast
traffic. Just like we would not feel safe driving a car on the same
stretch where a landing Boeing 747 could show up in the rear view mirror.

> But putting in bike lanes did not create the bicycle traffic in
> Portland, at least not initially. Facilities are now necessary just
> to handle the volume, and the bike lanes and other facilities
> undoubtedly brought out some more cyclists -- but figuring out who
> those are would take some effort and not just guessing. I much
> preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with
> minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes. I would settle for a
> wide shoulder, though. It really makes no difference to me except
> that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but
> that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules.
>

Same here. The long county road back out of the Sacramento Valley only
has bike lanes in spots but much of it now has wide enough shoulders. I
ride there a lot but most other riders would never do that. That is why
we have split commutes or however that is called, where people truck it
to a park & ride lot in the valley near the American River bike path,
then ride the remaining stretch to work.

This part of my ride is roughly the last 8mi of my trip when returning
from the valley and it is not at all enjoyable. I'd much prefer a
segragated bike path. It would increase safety WRT distracted, stone,
soused or whatever drivers. It would also get me away from the constant
noise (drowns out my MP3 player even when on max volume) and most of all
the Diesel soot. When I hit rush hour on that road which is very often
then a cough often develops by the end of the ride. It doesn't if it's
not rush hour. That is not healthy.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/25/2018 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-03-25 07:37, jbeattie wrote:

>> ... in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a

>> surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young
>> creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that
>> busy and there were and are alternative routes through the
>> neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary
>> roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural
>> roads with no shoulders.
>>
>
> I trust your judgment since you seem to live there long enough but the
> stories in publications sound differently (for those on low BW
> connections, this is an 11MB PDF file):
>
> http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=217489
>
> Quote "The accelerating growth in bicycle use validates Portland's
> "build it and they will come" approach to bicycle transportation".

First, that document is ten years old. Nationwide, more segregated
facilities are being built, but bike mode share isn't keeping pace.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/14/bike-commuting-growth-has-leveled-off-but-not-everywhere-in-the-u-s/

Second, repeating a propaganda line doesn't make it true. There are
plenty of places where "they built it" but almost nobody came using
bikes. And there are places and times when lots of people began using
bikes despite absolutely no increase in special bike infrastructure.

[Jay wrote:}

>> I much
>> preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with
>> minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes.  I would settle for a
>> wide shoulder, though.  It really makes no difference to me except
>> that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but
>> that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules

One lawyer I know is worried about the reduction in legal protection
when you ride on a shoulder. According to him, some laws are written
such that your rights diminish if you're not in the normal traffic lane
(or, I suppose, in a bike lane).

My main worries on shoulders are 1) debris, and 2) rumble strips
preventing me from avoiding debris. I've described briefly moving to a
shoulder to make passing easier for a following vehicle, and immediately
getting a flat as a reward. The regular lane gets nicely swept clean by
car tires.

> Same here. The long county road back out of the Sacramento Valley only
> has bike lanes in spots but much of it now has wide enough shoulders. I
> ride there a lot but most other riders would never do that. That is why
> we have split commutes or however that is called, where people truck it
> to a park & ride lot in the valley near the American River bike path,
> then ride the remaining stretch to work.
>
> This part of my ride is roughly the last 8mi of my trip when returning
> from the valley and it is not at all enjoyable. I'd much prefer a
> segragated bike path.

You're asking for an eight mile segregated bike path along a minor
county road? Should that happen on every minor county road? How many
trillion or quadrillion dollars should be allotted to projects like
that? Where would the money come from? How high would you like your real
estate and sales taxes to be?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Roger Merriman]

The build and they will come, does come but frankly with some fairly big
caveats, lot of the London Super Highways where busy with bikes before,
they where bike lanes, though the segregated sectors do seem to be pulling
in more than just the high speed/mileage commuters.

But not all works that well, my commute has a few miles of shared paths for
a few miles, lots of cars often stationary but bikes are a rarity, do see a
number of electric skateboards though! The path is direct and connects up
to the town centres on route but barely anyone uses it, they would rather
sit in there cars, it’s nr Heathrow and folks I swear go and sit in traffic
jams as a hobby around there!

Roger Merriman

[jbeattie]

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 10:57:58 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/25/2018 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
> > On 2018-03-25 07:37, jbeattie wrote:
> >> ... in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a
> >> surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young
> >> creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that
> >> busy and there were and are alternative routes through the
> >> neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary
> >> roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural
> >> roads with no shoulders.
> >>
> >
> > I trust your judgment since you seem to live there long enough but the
> > stories in publications sound differently (for those on low BW
> > connections, this is an 11MB PDF file):
> >
> > http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=217489
> >
> > Quote "The accelerating growth in bicycle use validates Portland's
> > "build it and they will come" approach to bicycle transportation".
>
> First, that document is ten years old. Nationwide, more segregated
> facilities are being built, but bike mode share isn't keeping pace.
> https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/14/bike-commuting-growth-has-leveled-off-but-not-everywhere-in-the-u-s/
>
> Second, repeating a propaganda line doesn't make it true. There are
> plenty of places where "they built it" but almost nobody came using
> bikes. And there are places and times when lots of people began using
> bikes despite absolutely no increase in special bike infrastructure.
>

The stats also don't support the proposition in many areas. There was a large increase in counts in Southwest Portland with no real infrastructure projects. Same with the close-in South East -- the Bohemian belly-button of Portland or maybe nipple. Close in South East has traffic calmed streets and old developments that were plenty rideable without the sharrows. Welcome to Dopeville: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azFUWiI2yA0

There is a north south facility that is a big collector and undoubtedly adds volume over the Hawthorne Bridge, but I don't know how many of those people were riding already or would have ridden in any event. There are plenty of north-south connectors. Anyway, I saw numbers going up with the influx in population long before the facilities, and the effect of facilities on ridership should be studied rather than just asserted.

Most of my ride today was on shoulderless arterials and secondary roads. It's not pleasant in places, but it doesn't bother me that much -- and like you say, the gov'munt isn't going to put in a bicycle Habitrail. And really? Blasting an MP3 player? Who the f*** does that? Joerg would be shunned in PDX.

-- Jay Beattie.

[lou.h...@gmail.com]

Here in The Netherlands were it is dead flat, save, nice weather most of the times, bike paths as an integral parts of the infrastructure I notice a boost in cycling after people stopped feeling embarrassed using a electric assisted bike. 30% of all sold bikes now are electric assisted and still growing.

Lou

[Joerg]

On 2018-03-25 10:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/25/2018 11:09 AM, Joerg wrote:
>> On 2018-03-25 07:37, jbeattie wrote:
>>> ... in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a
>>> surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young
>>> creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that
>>> busy and there were and are alternative routes through the
>>> neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary
>>> roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural
>>> roads with no shoulders.
>>>
>>
>> I trust your judgment since you seem to live there long enough but the
>> stories in publications sound differently (for those on low BW
>> connections, this is an 11MB PDF file):
>>
>> http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=217489
>>
>> Quote "The accelerating growth in bicycle use validates Portland's
>> "build it and they will come" approach to bicycle transportation".
>
> First, that document is ten years old. Nationwide, more segregated
> facilities are being built, but bike mode share isn't keeping pace.
> https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/14/bike-commuting-growth-has-leveled-off-but-not-everywhere-in-the-u-s/
>
>
> Second, repeating a propaganda line doesn't make it true. There are
> plenty of places where "they built it" but almost nobody came using
> bikes. And there are places and times when lots of people began using
> bikes despite absolutely no increase in special bike infrastructure.
>

One can always find a hair in the soup some place. Fact is, properly
design bike facilities can increase ridership, bike time.

> [Jay wrote:}
>
>>> I much
>>> preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with
>>> minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes. I would settle for a
>>> wide shoulder, though. It really makes no difference to me except
>>> that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but
>>> that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules
>
> One lawyer I know is worried about the reduction in legal protection
> when you ride on a shoulder. According to him, some laws are written
> such that your rights diminish if you're not in the normal traffic lane
> (or, I suppose, in a bike lane).
>
> My main worries on shoulders are 1) debris, and 2) rumble strips
> preventing me from avoiding debris. I've described briefly moving to a
> shoulder to make passing easier for a following vehicle, and immediately
> getting a flat as a reward. The regular lane gets nicely swept clean by
> car tires.
>

If you are not riding on a wide enough shoulder or bike lane the next
sheriff's deputy is likely going to stop and ticket you. That's the law
in California.

>> Same here. The long county road back out of the Sacramento Valley only
>> has bike lanes in spots but much of it now has wide enough shoulders.
>> I ride there a lot but most other riders would never do that. That is
>> why we have split commutes or however that is called, where people
>> truck it to a park & ride lot in the valley near the American River
>> bike path, then ride the remaining stretch to work.
>>
>> This part of my ride is roughly the last 8mi of my trip when returning
>> from the valley and it is not at all enjoyable. I'd much prefer a
>> segragated bike path.
>
> You're asking for an eight mile segregated bike path along a minor
> county road? Should that happen on every minor county road? How many
> trillion or quadrillion dollars should be allotted to projects like
> that?

Only one cycling artery is needed, more or less along Highway 50. Some
smart people have advocated that (even without my input ...) but the not
so smart ones were in office and decided to sprinkle $50M+ into paving a
singletrack. Which was a rather stupid decision but they started it.

So those $50M could have been used for that and it is way more than
would be needed. The rest could be given back to the taxpayer.

> Where would the money come from? How high would you like your real
> estate and sales taxes to be?
>

See above. One only has to be wise with the spending instead of profligate.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 3/26/2018 10:45 AM, Joerg wrote:
> On 2018-03-25 10:57, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> Second, repeating a propaganda line doesn't make it true. There are
>> plenty of places where "they built it" but almost nobody came using
>> bikes. And there are places and times when lots of people began using
>> bikes despite absolutely no increase in special bike infrastructure.
>>
>
> One can always find a hair in the soup some place. Fact is, properly
> design bike facilities can increase ridership, bike time.

Perhaps sometimes, in some places, some bike facilities "can" increase
ridership. But that's not the propaganda claim. The claim by you and
other facility sellers is without qualification, that they absolutely
"will" come. It's false. There are certainly examples where bike
facilities made no difference in ridership.

LAB's recent lists of state's and city's bike commuting share make that
clear. Only Oregon (barely) exceeds 2% bike mode share. Only five other
states exceed 1%.

Oddly, their list of 70 large cities with _highest_ bike mode share
includes Charlotte, NC, with a bike mode share of zero percent! (It's
like a kindergartener's trophy for showing up!) LAB found a way to add
Plano TX and Memphis TN to its bragging lists, even though each city has
a bike mode share of 0.1%.

I know that you, Joerg, think 0.1% is great for the U.S. But it's not.

>> My main worries on shoulders are 1) debris, and 2) rumble strips
>> preventing me from avoiding debris. I've described briefly moving to a
>> shoulder to make passing easier for a following vehicle, and immediately
>> getting a flat as a reward. The regular lane gets nicely swept clean by
>> car tires.
>>
>
> If you are not riding on a wide enough shoulder or bike lane the next
> sheriff's deputy is likely going to stop and ticket you.

Baloney.

> That's the law in California.

It's been discussed thoroughly. The law has plenty of exceptions, and
tickets are almost nonexistent.

>> You're asking for an eight mile segregated bike path along a minor
>> county road? Should that happen on every minor county road? How many
>> trillion or quadrillion dollars should be allotted to projects like
>> that?
>
>
> Only one cycling artery is needed, more or less along Highway 50.

IOW, you want YOUR special segregated bike path because YOU want to ride
there.

It is odd that the State of California hasn't realized how special and
deserving you are. Those darned penny pinchers!


--
- Frank Krygowski