"Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so much" January 31, 2024

[sms]

"Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
much." "They were finding the main roads because they’re faster, but
they’re unpleasant to cycle on."

https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/

Kai Ryssdall interviewing Laura Laker, freelance journalist in London
writing about active transit and the author of the upcoming book,
“Potholes and Pavements: A bumpy ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.”

[Roger Merriman]

Which is the problem of shunting bikes off the main roads really as
navigation becomes trickier.

And another reason the ones that do use the main roads are successful ie
they are quick direct an all that.

To be honest I’ve found the apps for bikes are fairly woeful and I’m not
sure they are useful solution, personally if I have such a journey I plot
the route and use my Garmin to navigate.

I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
route into town, with out much navigation required.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/2/2024 4:34 PM, sms wrote:
> "Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
> much." "They were finding the main roads because they’re faster, but
> they’re unpleasant to cycle on."
>
> https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/

It's largely a complaint about mapping apps for cycling, or using Google
maps for that purpose. I agree Google Maps isn't often the best. Until
recently we were Warm Showers hosts of touring cyclists. For a long
time, Google told people riding from Pittsburgh to our place, with full
packs, to climb one of the most famously difficult hills in the area. I
see that's now been corrected, perhaps in part because I submitted a map
correction covering that.

Regarding main roads: Some cyclists prefer them, some don't, and it
varies by situation as well as person. I usually prefer lower traffic
roads for the aesthetics, but there have been plenty of times I've taken
main roads (as in "Nobody would ride that!") just to get directly where
I was going and be done with it.

And that's a general problem with bike maps. Rather than recommending
one or two routes for a generic cyclist, as Google does, it would be
nice to be able to specify one's personal level of skill, the importance
of aesthetics, whether one prefers longer & flat vs. shorter and steep,
etc. then get a route recommendation that's somewhat personalized.

But: Whatever! All this will matter to me only when I do some tours out
of my known area; and I've always done well enough with paper maps,
which is what I prefer. Our local bike maps color code streets by
appropriate riding skill level, and they work well for lots of people.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
<ro...@sarlet.com>:

>sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> "Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
>> much." "They were finding the main roads because they’re faster, but
>> they’re unpleasant to cycle on."
>>
>> https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/
>>
>> Kai Ryssdall interviewing Laura Laker, freelance journalist in London
>> writing about active transit and the author of the upcoming book,
>> “Potholes and Pavements: A bumpy ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.”
>>
>
>Which is the problem of shunting bikes off the main roads really as
>navigation becomes trickier.

Yes indeed. In addition, it becomes more awkward and a little more
dangerous. Not unexpectedly, I might add. Even a child could observe
the fact that a badly build and badly maintained outer side of a road is
awkward to use, even more so an even less maintained, incomplete and
meandering tertiary network build in spaces that most people call "lost
places".

>
>And another reason the ones that do use the main roads are successful ie
>they are quick direct an all that.

These main roads are main roads because they were and are being built
exactly where there is a need for them.

>
>To be honest I’ve found the apps for bikes are fairly woeful and I’m not
>sure they are useful solution, personally if I have such a journey I plot
>the route and use my Garmin to navigate.

So do I. In my experience, those old, mostly pocket pc/Windows CE
based auto navi systems where better for finding a usable course while
riding than my more or less top of the line Garmin Edge 1030. I had to
avoid the bicycling profile on my Yakumo Delta 300, because that sent us
into the bushes, based on the assumption that all cyclists are
recreational cyclists prefering forest trails over all else. Using the
motorcycle/moped profile combined with "shortest route" instead was
almost perfect. In addition, those devices allowed to customize the
routing algorithm by changing the weights of different road categories,
simply by editing a text based configuration file.

>
>I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
>route into town, with out much navigation required.

Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very
_belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle
path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
for those few lucky persons.

Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.


--
Thank you for observing all safety precautions

[Catrike Ryder]

It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban and
suburban bike paths. As a purely recreational rider I do my best to
avoid them for the very reasons I've seen expressed here on RBT. In
fact, I do my best to avoid riding in any urban and suburban areas,
although, sometimes, I need faciliies or have an urge for a coffee or
a chocolate malt, and I take the plunge.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:26:11 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/2/2024 4:34 PM, sms wrote:
>> "Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
>> much." "They were finding the main roads because they’re faster, but
>> they’re unpleasant to cycle on."
>>
>> https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/
>
>It's largely a complaint about mapping apps for cycling, or using Google
>maps for that purpose. I agree Google Maps isn't often the best. Until
>recently we were Warm Showers hosts of touring cyclists. For a long
>time, Google told people riding from Pittsburgh to our place, with full
>packs, to climb one of the most famously difficult hills in the area. I
>see that's now been corrected, perhaps in part because I submitted a map
>correction covering that.

Apparently, Krygowski can't comment on anything without slipping in a
little brag. "Look at what I did," he says.



Many narcissists enjoy bragging about themselves in grandiose and
exaggerated terms, be it their physical attractiveness, material
(trophy) possessions, social popularity, exciting lifestyle, merit
badge achievements, high-status associations, or other envy-worthy
attributes. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with describing
oneself in positive terms, the pathological narcissist does so in the
following unhealthy ways:

A. The self-flattering statements are often exaggerated.

B. The self-flattering statements are often uttered, directly or
indirectly, at the expense of others (“I’m better than you,” “you
don’t have what I have,” “they‘re nothing compared with me.”) The
narcissist’s fragile ego is boosted not by positively affirming
oneself, but by putting others down.

C. The self-admiring statements are intended for you to look up to and
adulate them. In essence, they want you to worship them, so they feel
“special," “exceptional," and “important."

It is with this superficial and compensatory outer “mask” that the
narcissist constructs his or her false identity, submerging an
insecure, wounded self.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201807/5-ways-narcissists-compensate-for-their-inferiority

[Roger Merriman]

Wolfgang Strobl <ne...@mystrobl.de> wrote:
> Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
> <ro...@sarlet.com>:
>
>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> "Biking in cities can be complicated, and map apps can only help so
>>> much." "They were finding the main roads because they’re faster, but
>>> they’re unpleasant to cycle on."
>>>
>>> https://www.marketplace.org/2024/01/31/cyclists-cities-bike-infrastructure-maps/
>>>
>>> Kai Ryssdall interviewing Laura Laker, freelance journalist in London
>>> writing about active transit and the author of the upcoming book,
>>> “Potholes and Pavements: A bumpy ride on Britain’s National Cycle Network.”
>>>
>>
>> Which is the problem of shunting bikes off the main roads really as
>> navigation becomes trickier.
>
> Yes indeed. In addition, it becomes more awkward and a little more
> dangerous. Not unexpectedly, I might add. Even a child could observe
> the fact that a badly build and badly maintained outer side of a road is
> awkward to use, even more so an even less maintained, incomplete and
> meandering tertiary network build in spaces that most people call "lost
> places".
>
>>
>> And another reason the ones that do use the main roads are successful ie
>> they are quick direct an all that.

Absolutely as bikes are comparatively slow though in london less so, but
even so don’t generally want to take the long way around, I do on the
commute as the direct route is grim, I also if I do take the car do similar
as the direct route isn’t nice and I prefer to be 5/10 mins slower and have
a more chilled route in both cases.

>
> These main roads are main roads because they were and are being built
> exactly where there is a need for them.
>
>>
>> To be honest I’ve found the apps for bikes are fairly woeful and I’m not
>> sure they are useful solution, personally if I have such a journey I plot
>> the route and use my Garmin to navigate.
>
> So do I. In my experience, those old, mostly pocket pc/Windows CE
> based auto navi systems where better for finding a usable course while
> riding than my more or less top of the line Garmin Edge 1030. I had to
> avoid the bicycling profile on my Yakumo Delta 300, because that sent us
> into the bushes, based on the assumption that all cyclists are
> recreational cyclists prefering forest trails over all else. Using the
> motorcycle/moped profile combined with "shortest route" instead was
> almost perfect. In addition, those devices allowed to customize the
> routing algorithm by changing the weights of different road categories,
> simply by editing a text based configuration file.

I tend to plot routes than let the unit plot its own, only doing that if
I’ve found road blocked/bridge down sort of thing, and even then tend to
ask it to route to next obvious point, as the Garmin routing does like
cyclelanes any cyclelanes which makes for fiddly routing, though the 830 is
less so than the older Edge I had.

>
>>
>> I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
>> route into town, with out much navigation required.
>
>
> Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
> worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very
> _belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle
> path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
> bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
> for those few lucky persons.

It’s one of the few that reaches, out to edge of london though not only
one, clearly quite large population that can use even just that one, more
than large enough to be a city.

It’s unusual in terms of its distance ie folks using it to commute 15/20
miles in, which also to do with demographics ie professional folks who live
out this way. There are more cycling routes around london very few if any
stretch out 20 something miles.

Note this is a routes some parts may have a cyclelane/cycleway or not most
will predate any infrastructure. It’s the routes folks have used for
decades.

>
> Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
> enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.
>
>

In my experience certainly the flagship stuff the increased cyclists is
good, but I notice the increased diversity ie not just the brave and fast,
of which I’m one!

Roger Merriman

[Wolfgang Strobl]

Am Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:24:35 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder
<Sol...@old.bikers.org>:

>On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
><ne...@mystrobl.de> wrote:
>
>>Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
>><ro...@sarlet.com>:

...

>>>I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
>>>route into town, with out much navigation required.
>>
>>
>>Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
>>worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very
>>_belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle
>>path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
>>bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
>>for those few lucky persons.
>>
>>Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
>>enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.
>
>It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban and
>suburban bike paths.

Not so.

These mostly mandatory bike paths certainly are more of a hassle, when
commuting in urban areas, as I did for decades. There are time
constraints and you have no choice about the destination.

But forcing cyclists to use inferior ways in rural areas isn't better,
it's just different. The road network is less dense there, so you often
have the very same problem of not having a usable alternative, because
the distances of potential alternative routes exceed your capabilites as
a cyclist. Remember: different from motorists, cyclists have a very
limited power budget.

>As a purely recreational rider I do my best to
>avoid them for the very reasons I've seen expressed here on RBT.

Being retired some years now, outside of shopping and occasional visits,
all my rides are recreational, in a way. But I still have to ride
starting from home. Driving the family car for many miles every other
day, for just riding my bike a fraction of that distanc somewhere
outsitde of town isn't something I indend to do or to talk other people
into. Actually, its excactly what I strictly want to avoid.

>In
>fact, I do my best to avoid riding in any urban and suburban areas,
>although, sometimes, I need faciliies or have an urge for a coffee or
>a chocolate malt, and I take the plunge.
>

Fortunately, the part of the city where we live still allows cyclists to
use most ordinary roads for cycling. And, believe it or not, there is a
lot more everyday cycling here then in those parts of the city where
thei've built "cycling infrastructure". Personally, I don't need
"Tempo 30" (30 km/h == 19 mph) instead of the default 31 mph, but I
suppose that's all it takes to empower cyclists who have been scared to
death by the ubiquitous, car-affine fear-mongering created for that very
purpose.

For vacations, we prefer and use rural areas specifically choose for
there absence of "cycling infrastructure". Works great.


--
Bicycle helmets are the Bach flower remedies of traffic

[Roger Merriman]

Wolfgang Strobl <ne...@mystrobl.de> wrote:
> Am Sat, 03 Feb 2024 07:24:35 -0500 schrieb Catrike Ryder
> <Sol...@old.bikers.org>:
>
>> On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 12:23:43 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl
>> <ne...@mystrobl.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Am Fri, 02 Feb 2024 22:15:44 GMT schrieb Roger Merriman
>>> <ro...@sarlet.com>:
>
> ...
>
>>>> I’m also lucky with location in that I’m at the end of well trodden cycle
>>>> route into town, with out much navigation required.
>>>
>>>
>>> Problem is, like in most lotteries, most players are unlucky. Even
>>> worse, the very existence of a nearby cycle route, even just the very
>>> _belief_ of a motorist about the availibly of a propery maintained cycle
>>> path that could get that pesty cyclist out of "his" road creates
>>> bullying and very noticeable dangers for many more cyclists than luck
>>> for those few lucky persons.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, although there are plenty of losers, there are still
>>> enough lucky ones to dominate transport policy with regard to cycling.
>>
>> It seems to me that these bike paths complaints are about urban and
>> suburban bike paths.
>
> Not so.
>
> These mostly mandatory bike paths certainly are more of a hassle, when
> commuting in urban areas, as I did for decades. There are time
> constraints and you have no choice about the destination.

How did you end up with Mandatory bike paths? Certainly in uk any attempts
have failed miserably I think from memory one police officer overstepped
his position and the resulting court case made it very clear that cyclist
have the choice and right to use the roadway.

Roger Merriman

[Catrike Ryder]

On Sun, 04 Feb 2024 11:56:09 +0100, Wolfgang Strobl

I am absolutely against prohibiting bicycles from riding on any roads
except, perhaps, limited access highways. To that extent, I'd have to
give a lot of thought to whether, and to what extent, I'd oppose
having them on limited access highways.

>>As a purely recreational rider I do my best to
>>avoid them for the very reasons I've seen expressed here on RBT.
>
>Being retired some years now, outside of shopping and occasional visits,
>all my rides are recreational, in a way. But I still have to ride
>starting from home. Driving the family car for many miles every other
>day, for just riding my bike a fraction of that distanc somewhere
>outsitde of town isn't something I indend to do or to talk other people
>into. Actually, its excactly what I strictly want to avoid.

I drive approximately five miles to where I start most of my rides. I
could ride it, and I have, but some of the route is a 55 mph, heavily
traveled, narrow two lane road, and, the bike is already in the back
of the truck. That's where it lives, except when I need the truck for
something else.

>>fact, I do my best to avoid riding in any urban and suburban areas,
>>although, sometimes, I need faciliies or have an urge for a coffee or
>>a chocolate malt, and I take the plunge.
>>
>
>Fortunately, the part of the city where we live still allows cyclists to
>use most ordinary roads for cycling. And, believe it or not, there is a
>lot more everyday cycling here then in those parts of the city where
>thei've built "cycling infrastructure". Personally, I don't need
>"Tempo 30" (30 km/h == 19 mph) instead of the default 31 mph, but I
>suppose that's all it takes to empower cyclists who have been scared to
>death by the ubiquitous, car-affine fear-mongering created for that very
>purpose.
>
>For vacations, we prefer and use rural areas specifically choose for
>there absence of "cycling infrastructure". Works great.

Riding with car and truck traffic requires significantly more
awareness than on the bike path, and that's one reason why I generally
choose not to do it any more. Another, of course, is that I have some
physical limitations and precautions.

[sms]

On 2/3/2024 8:53 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> Absolutely as bikes are comparatively slow though in london less so, but
> even so don’t generally want to take the long way around, I do on the
> commute as the direct route is grim, I also if I do take the car do similar
> as the direct route isn’t nice and I prefer to be 5/10 mins slower and have
> a more chilled route in both cases.

In my area, Silicon Valley, the commutes from the housing-rich areas to
the job-rich areas are often faster when you don't use the main roads
because of the increasing number of multi-use paths that avoid traffic
lights, stop signs, and surface-level railroad crossings. Even though
the speed limit is 15MPH, you don't have to be constantly stopping.
15MPH was fine pre-Ebike, now it's violated a lot but there is no
enforcement.

Most of these paths are along waterways and have no lights because the
water district says that lights disturb the wildlife and forbid them. So
you have to have good lights to use them at night.

Pre-pandemic, pre-remote-work, these multi-use paths were packed with
bicycle commuters going to Google, Microsoft, Intel, Nvidia etc.. Now
they are still well-used, but not as crowded, which makes them more
pleasant to use.

Look at <https://i.imgur.com/XBgNdTn.jpeg> and decide if you'd rather be
on the paved multi-use path (green), with no traffic lights and no
freeway or expressway interchanges, or having to navigate those
high-speed interchanges between expressways (bicycles allowed) and
freeways (red). I used that path even before it was paved because I
worked in that area.

A new multi-use path that will go between some of the Apple campuses in
Cupertino, combined with protected bike lanes, is in the works
<https://walkbikecupertino.org/2023/09/tamien-innu-moves-forward/>. It
was originally called the Junipero Serra trail, but given the history of
Father Junipero Serra the city dropped that name.

Also, in this area, some of the worst maintained roads are the more
major roads. It all depends on which government entity is tasked with
the maintenance of the roads (state, county, or city) and how much money
they're willing to spend to achieve a high PCI (pavement condition index).

[Roger Merriman]

That does look direct, though I assume much like my old cycleway do need to
be reasonably close to start/end for it to be useful? Ie too far and not
worth it time wise at least, does though at a glance look fairly useful
location.

> A new multi-use path that will go between some of the Apple campuses in
> Cupertino, combined with protected bike lanes, is in the works
> <https://walkbikecupertino.org/2023/09/tamien-innu-moves-forward/>. It
> was originally called the Junipero Serra trail, but given the history of
> Father Junipero Serra the city dropped that name.
>
> Also, in this area, some of the worst maintained roads are the more
> major roads. It all depends on which government entity is tasked with
> the maintenance of the roads (state, county, or city) and how much money
> they're willing to spend to achieve a high PCI (pavement condition index).
>
>
>

My commute bike is an old MTB so within reason potholes etc just get socked
up in tire squish!

Roger Merriman

[Rolf Mantel]

Certainly such things have to be decided by the legislator:
"Let's proudly present roads free from bicycles to the international
guests at the Berlin Oylmpic games".

As opposed to most other ideas of that time, this one caught on and
spread all over the Continent, just like Napoleon's "drive on the right"
did 150 years earlier.

[Roger Merriman]

Any efforts to change this? I mean cycleways can be good but should be
choice for obvious reasons.

While I do use cycle infrastructure I don’t use it all or every day, ie
some is woeful and pointless if not actively risky, and some just aren’t
suitable if at speed and so on.

Roger Merriman

[Rolf Mantel]

Yes, in 1998, the rule was changed from "bicycles have to use bicycle
paths" to "bicycles have to use bicycle paths if they are marked with a
sign (white bicycle on blue background)". Around the same time, France
introduced a square road sign "optional bicycle path" to supplement the
round "mandatory bicycle path".

In both countries, cyclists have manged to turn approx. 10% of the
bicylce paths to optional ones, and car drivers are of the strong
opinion that cyclists must use all bicycle paths irrespective of legal
status and quality.

[Roger Merriman]

That argument was kinda made and settled early last century here, such
things as the road tax being changed to vehicle to stop entitlement and the
Cycling Touring Club who fought to keep bikes on the roads.

Plus some of the peak car infrastructure certainly in london failed such as
streets in the sky and so on.

Do have mandatory cycle lanes though they differ significantly in meaning
in that the mandatory means cars can’t use them than bikes have to.

Ie the non mandatory are literally just paint not even legal protection!

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/4/2024 5:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> That does look direct, though I assume much like my old cycleway do need to
> be reasonably close to start/end for it to be useful? Ie too far and not

> worth it time wise at least...

That's true. As a guess, any one fancy bike facility in a city will be
within reach of just a couple percent of the population, most of whom
would never use it anyway. And those projects easily reach millions of
dollars in costs.

To achieve the glorious goals of really effective increases in bike mode
share, with measurable benefits regarding reduced congestion, increased
public health and reduced pollution, a city would need many dozens of
such fancy corridors plus lots of luck. The cost would likely be
hundreds of millions of dollars.

Amsterdam was able to do that, but the Amsterdam voters who approved
those efforts have greatly different attitudes and priorities than
American voters. American cities are more likely to get half-ass
approximations of good facilities, which do very little good and often
make things worse.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Here in the U.S., the League of American Bicyclists used to be very
dedicated to preserving cyclists' rights to the road. In the past 15
years or so they've switched to heavily promoting segregation. Some say
the change was pushed by prominent bike industry figures who imagine
that changing America into Amsterdam will help industry bottom lines.

Maybe ten years ago there were some pretty prominent (at least, in bike
advocacy circles) prosecutions of cyclists who really needed to use
roadways for transportation to work. See
https://road.cc/content/news/130546-kentucky-cyclist-repeatedly-arrested-%E2%80%93-commuting-road
Despite pleas for legal assistance, the LAB pretended she didn't
exist. As I recall, she eventually had to move out of the area.

Another guy I've met was in a very similar situation in some New England
state. He was able to persist in his battle against the cops and finally
win. But again, LAB took no interest in preserving his right to the road.

And I'll note, neither of those cases involved bike facilities! The
battles were over fundamental ability to use the road at all!

The Ohio Bicycle Federation was able to modify Ohio law to say that bike
lanes, etc. cannot be mandatory. I don't know how many other states have
similar laws.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Rolf Mantel]

Am 05.02.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> On 2/4/2024 5:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> That does look direct, though I assume much like my old cycleway do
>> need to
>> be reasonably close to start/end for it to be useful? Ie too far and not
>> worth it time wise at least...
>
> That's true. As a guess, any one fancy bike facility in a city will be
> within reach of just a couple percent of the population, most of whom
> would never use it anyway. And those projects easily reach millions of
> dollars in costs.

The German authorities plan "bicycle highways" on the order of magnitue
of €2 million per km, approx. $3 million per mile, which is considered
"appropriate" when you have plausible ridership of 1,500 or more per
work day and gets federal subsidies with 2,000 rides per workday.

One minimum standard is that the route built as a bicycle highway must
be at least 3 miles long and connect towns with city centers ideally not
more than 6 miles apart, to actually get stome usage.

[sms]

Frank is wrong of course™.

The bicycle facilities are in reach of most of the population. You don't
need to be on these facilities for your entire commute, you use regular
roads to reach the multi-use paths (MUPs). You can use roads with or
without bike lanes to reach these MUPs.

As this map <https://i.imgur.com/9cBXdQ1.png> shows, you can reach the
MUPs (green) via surface streets, they don't have to be within a few
meters of your house or apartment.

These facilities are heavily used by both commuting cyclists and for
recreation. Also, in this area, it would be rare if public transit were
faster than bicycling, and that's with a regular bike. For my wife's
commute, Google Maps shows: Driving: 20 minutes, Bicycling: 47 minutes,
Public Transit 72 minutes. With an eBike I think that bicycling would be
30-35 minutes.

Yes, these facilities do cost millions of dollars, but IMVAIO it's a
worthwhile use of tax money!

Remember, all the data proves that bicycle infrastructure increases
cycling rates.

Frank can learn the facts about bicycle infrastructure here:
<https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/why-us-cities-are-investing-safer-more-connected-cycling-infrastructure>.

--
“If you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it
really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as
they do about the subject.”—Tin Foil Awards

[Roger Merriman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/4/2024 5:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> That does look direct, though I assume much like my old cycleway do need to
>> be reasonably close to start/end for it to be useful? Ie too far and not
>> worth it time wise at least...
>
> That's true. As a guess, any one fancy bike facility in a city will be
> within reach of just a couple percent of the population, most of whom
> would never use it anyway. And those projects easily reach millions of
> dollars in costs.
>

Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner
london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling
routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to
them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive
certainly compared to junction upgrades.

Chiswick high road when completed ie Hounslow to Hammersmith which is a
good few miles is finishing Brentford and then on to Hounslow so far it’s 9
million, note that one tunnel (Silvertown) for cars only is likely to get
into the billions and likewise on the edge of london the Wisley M25
junction is being upgraded to many hundred’s of millions as clearly one
more lane will solve it…

> To achieve the glorious goals of really effective increases in bike mode
> share, with measurable benefits regarding reduced congestion, increased
> public health and reduced pollution, a city would need many dozens of
> such fancy corridors plus lots of luck. The cost would likely be
> hundreds of millions of dollars.

Certainly in London number of cycle infrastructure carries large volumes,
and at times ie peak times is higher than cars, which has a falling trend
even in outer london. Though the larger mode share is walking as London
grew by swallowing other towns and so on, so is quite walkable, I can walk
within a few mins to Bike shop/bakers/off licence/cafe’s train station and
bus stops and so on.

>
> Amsterdam was able to do that, but the Amsterdam voters who approved
> those efforts have greatly different attitudes and priorities than
> American voters. American cities are more likely to get half-ass
> approximations of good facilities, which do very little good and often
> make things worse.
>

I suspect that london will never have as many cycle lanes as Amsterdam but
continue to have low traffic neighbourhoods ie places with planters to
prevent though traffic ie rat running, and more substantial cycle
infrastructure on the routes into london.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

When I became conscious from the concussion after two years I didn't know how to get anywhere. I wasn't allowed to drive and the only way to get anywhere was to use Google Maps. There was no place I had to go that Maps couldn't route me there the fastest way for a bicycle.

[Roger Merriman]

That doesn’t need to be either, can do both they aren’t mutually exclusive
by any means.

> Maybe ten years ago there were some pretty prominent (at least, in bike
> advocacy circles) prosecutions of cyclists who really needed to use
> roadways for transportation to work. See
> https://road.cc/content/news/130546-kentucky-cyclist-repeatedly-arrested-%E2%80%93-commuting-road
>
> Despite pleas for legal assistance, the LAB pretended she didn't
> exist. As I recall, she eventually had to move out of the area.
>
> Another guy I've met was in a very similar situation in some New England
> state. He was able to persist in his battle against the cops and finally
> win. But again, LAB took no interest in preserving his right to the road.
>
> And I'll note, neither of those cases involved bike facilities! The
> battles were over fundamental ability to use the road at all!
>
> The Ohio Bicycle Federation was able to modify Ohio law to say that bike
> lanes, etc. cannot be mandatory. I don't know how many other states have
> similar laws.
>

Roger Merriman

[sms]

On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner
> london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling
> routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to
> them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive
> certainly compared to junction upgrades.

I recall when they finally completed one bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a vehicle bridge
but no one on either side really wanted it because of the additional
motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets. Finally they
built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge
<http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it
cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for cyclists and it is
heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend tax money than to
improve transportation infrastructure.

Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so against increasing cycling
numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.

[Roger Merriman]

I assume it’s ideological.

Roger Merriman

[sms]

On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> I assume it’s ideological.

Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
infrastructure.

The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."

[John B.]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:37:22 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I assume it’s ideological.
>
>Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
>cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
>to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
>infrastructure.
>
>The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
>same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
>separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."

But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
traffic increasing? Or is it more a matter of "Oh! It looks like a
nice day, I guess I'll ride my bike."? Or the alternate, "Goodness,
it's raining and cold, I'll take the car."

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/5/2024 6:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/5/2024 12:21 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Certainly for cities as large as London (note your suburb would be inner
>>> london I’m out past Petersburg in terms of distance) with number of cycling
>>> routes which as time has gone on have had cycle infrastructure added to
>>> them, people converge onto them. None of these are particularly expensive
>>> certainly compared to junction upgrades.
>>
>> I recall when they finally completed one bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
>> a freeway in my city. Originally it was supposed to be a vehicle bridge
>> but no one on either side really wanted it because of the additional
>> motor vehicle traffic it would cause on quiet streets. Finally they
>> built a bicycle/pedestrian bridge
>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3423769405_958b7256ea.jpg>. Yes, it
>> cost "millions." But it is a pretty vital link for cyclists and it is
>> heavily used. I can think of a lot worse ways to spend tax money than to
>> improve transportation infrastructure.

If a person is hugely devoted to bike infrastructure, of course they'll
say spending millions on a bike/ped bridge is a great idea. People like
that are in favor of almost any bike infrastructure, no matter the cost.

>> Not sure why "he who must not be named" is so against increasing cycling
>> numbers by making it safer and more enjoyable.
>>
> I assume it’s ideological.

First, I'm not against increasing cycling numbers. But I'm skeptical of
the value of most bike infrastructure based on several observations.

One is the inflated promises: "If we build it, they will come!"
promotions promise terrific increases in bike mode share, and with that,
significant decreases in auto use and congestion. AFAICT that almost
never happens. I've seen many, many cities with lots of bike lanes. I
see lots of bikes only very near some universities in some of those
cities, and empty bike lanes elsewhere. Bike mode share in U.S. cities
rarely exceeds 1%, no matter what promises were made.

Another reason is the sales techniques used to promote this stuff. The
number one talking point is "safety," as in "This will _finally_ give
people a safe place to ride!" That carries the implication that riding
ordinary streets is just too dangerous, which is absolutely false. By
putting that message out there, I think facilities proponents are
actually decreasing cycling. Why? Because they're making people believe
they should not ride on ordinary streets! And almost all streets in any
city will remain "ordinary" forever. You simply can't put bike
facilities everywhere.

A third reason is lousy design standards, as in "Any bike facility is a
good bike facility." I've seen some really crazy stuff built for bikes -
crazy enough that no cyclist I know is likely to use it. They've said so
in conversations I've overheard, with no prompting from me. And I've had
several friends injured on "nice safe" bike facilities, specifically
because of deficient designs. Based on people I know, the risk per mile
ridden is actually higher on these "innovative" facilities.

A fourth reason is the maintenance problem. When politicians push to get
bike lanes or bike trails installed, they figure their job is done,
because they have something to point to at reelection time. But it's not
as effective to point at an expensive small-scale sweeper vehicle, or
guys fixing pavement that only cyclists use; so that stuff gets little
or no funding. (The past week or two, we've had discussions about that
lack of maintenance.) Gravel-filled or snow-filled bike lanes are a well
known problem. So is broken glass, mud, fallen leaves and other debris.

A fifth reason is the reaction of motorists. Even in states or countries
where it's legal to leave a bike lane or ride on a road without one,
motorists assume you should never do that, and even some cops do the
same. Some motorist get downright aggressive about it. And I think
motorist education efforts to say "We built this for cyclists but they
don't have to use it" are very unlikely to exist, or succeed if they do
exist. Hell, within the past two years I had a woman driver slow down,
match my speed, blare her horn and yell at me to "get on that new
sidewalk! My tax dollars paid for it!" (Note: Sidewalk, not bike path!)

I can go on, but you get the idea. As a well-known bike advocate said,
"99 percent of bike lanes give the others a bad name." I think he's
exaggerating only slightly.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/5/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> Here in the U.S., the League of American Bicyclists used to be very
>> dedicated to preserving cyclists' rights to the road. In the past 15
>> years or so they've switched to heavily promoting segregation. Some say
>> the change was pushed by prominent bike industry figures who imagine
>> that changing America into Amsterdam will help industry bottom lines.
>>
> That doesn’t need to be either, can do both they aren’t mutually exclusive
> by any means.

True, the two strategies don't need to be mutually exclusive. But from
what I've observed of LAW, they are.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Ryder]

Here's a simple solution to your problem. If you're afraid to ride in
some "bicycle infrastructure," don't do it

[Roger Merriman]

In cities as large as London? Absolutely the trend for cars is down.
Driving into london even off peak hours is a monumentally bad idea! And
folks have options such as public transport which is the big hitters, and
yes cycling is growing if fairly low number of mode share.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

These things are not set in stone and can be changed as well it’s politics.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

On a big city one bike lane etc isn’t going to increase mode share london
is what 15 million or so, but certainly can have a huge increase in numbers
using said infrastructure.

> Another reason is the sales techniques used to promote this stuff. The
> number one talking point is "safety," as in "This will _finally_ give
> people a safe place to ride!" That carries the implication that riding
> ordinary streets is just too dangerous, which is absolutely false. By
> putting that message out there, I think facilities proponents are
> actually decreasing cycling. Why? Because they're making people believe
> they should not ride on ordinary streets! And almost all streets in any
> city will remain "ordinary" forever. You simply can't put bike
> facilities everywhere.

Don’t need to in general at least with london the infrastructure is
targeted at least now on main routes, ie generally big roads some of which
absolutely can be accident black spots, ie junctions one in the city of
London has had cars and taxies banned I believe for that reason.

It’s notable with good reason that it’s not just the numbers change but the
diversity of riders ie not just the fast and the brave like myself, who was
happy to take on Hammersmith multi lane roundabout.

And remember it’s not just about absolute risk to, folks experience ie some
roads can be guite grim.

>
> A third reason is lousy design standards, as in "Any bike facility is a
> good bike facility." I've seen some really crazy stuff built for bikes -
> crazy enough that no cyclist I know is likely to use it. They've said so
> in conversations I've overheard, with no prompting from me. And I've had
> several friends injured on "nice safe" bike facilities, specifically
> because of deficient designs. Based on people I know, the risk per mile
> ridden is actually higher on these "innovative" facilities.
>

A few cones isn’t really, it and note some such as the article you linked
are being highly selective.

TfL certainly say they have data that they do work but we are talking
proper segregation ie protected junctions and so on than some cones to keep
cars from wandering over the white line which isn’t totally pointless but
life changing it’s not.

> A fourth reason is the maintenance problem. When politicians push to get
> bike lanes or bike trails installed, they figure their job is done,
> because they have something to point to at reelection time. But it's not
> as effective to point at an expensive small-scale sweeper vehicle, or
> guys fixing pavement that only cyclists use; so that stuff gets little
> or no funding. (The past week or two, we've had discussions about that
> lack of maintenance.) Gravel-filled or snow-filled bike lanes are a well
> known problem. So is broken glass, mud, fallen leaves and other debris.
>

That is maintenance or rather if your town/city etc aren’t clearing it what
on earth are you paying your taxes for?

And London is far from a cycling utopia!

> A fifth reason is the reaction of motorists. Even in states or countries
> where it's legal to leave a bike lane or ride on a road without one,
> motorists assume you should never do that, and even some cops do the
> same. Some motorist get downright aggressive about it. And I think
> motorist education efforts to say "We built this for cyclists but they
> don't have to use it" are very unlikely to exist, or succeed if they do
> exist. Hell, within the past two years I had a woman driver slow down,
> match my speed, blare her horn and yell at me to "get on that new
> sidewalk! My tax dollars paid for it!" (Note: Sidewalk, not bike path!)
>

This sort of thing clearly does happen, though personally not something
that happens to me.

And yes car centric stuff will keep pushing, attempts to change the Highway
Code to suggest cyclists must use bike lanes was rapidly dropped due to
feedback.

> I can go on, but you get the idea. As a well-known bike advocate said,
> "99 percent of bike lanes give the others a bad name." I think he's
> exaggerating only slightly.
>

The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
closed mind about these things.

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

+1 well done
--
Andrew Muzi
a...@yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom Kunich]

So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?

[AMuzi]

Without.
I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:45:20 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/6/2024 9:18 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:

>> On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 4:37:28?PM UTC-8, sms wrote:
>>> On 2/5/2024 3:26 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>

>>>> I assume it痴 ideological.

>>> Perhaps. The John Forester ideology that has no interest in increasing
>>> cycling numbers by following the approach of other countries in trying
>>> to reduce motor vehicle traffic by encouraging more cycling by adding
>>> infrastructure.
>>>
>>> The ideology of "gosh darnit, bicycles need to be treated exactly the
>>> same as motor vehicles and need to share the same roads. Any attempt to
>>> separate bicycles from motor vehicles is not acceptable."
>>> --

>>> 的f you are not an expert on a subject, then your opinions about it

>>> really do matter less than the opinions of experts. It's not
>>> indoctrination nor elitism. It's just that you don't know as much as

>>> they do about the subject.迫Tin Foil Awards

>> So would you rather ride on a road with or without a bike lane?
>
>Without.
>I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.

Me too. I don't like cars and trucks whizzing past a couple of feet
away. It's worse on the Catrike where I set below most car's windows.

[sms]

On 2/5/2024 6:02 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
> traffic increasing?

Not sure about auto traffic declining, but bicycle traffic is absolutely
increasing in areas that have installed bicycle infrastructure.

[sms]

On 2/6/2024 7:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> Without.
> I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.

Except often there are no parallel streets that get you where you need
to go, and often the alternate routes are freeways where you aren't
allowed (with a few exceptions.

[AMuzi]

On 2/6/2024 11:58 AM, sms wrote:
> On 2/6/2024 7:45 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Without.
>> I'll ride a parallel street or alternate route instead.
>
> Except often there are no parallel streets that get you
> where you need to go, and often the alternate routes are
> freeways where you aren't allowed (with a few exceptions.
>

There's always an alternate. The world is my bicycle route.

[Roger Merriman]

Doesn’t it rather depend? On my commute bike or MTB I’m more likely to
choose a bike lane even if it requires crossing etc, on the gravel bike I’m
more likely to keep on the road as I’m comparatively faster.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
> closed mind about these things.

Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
problems have vanished recently.

The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
local facilities that are less than five years old!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 09:55:59 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/5/2024 6:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
>> traffic increasing?
>
>Not sure about auto traffic declining, but bicycle traffic is absolutely
>increasing in areas that have installed bicycle infrastructure.

But, is this a "good" thing?

Given that a "road", the area over which wheel traffic can travel, is
of finite size is it good, in the sense of the traveling public, to
increase the number of vehicles using it?

Added to that, I have frequently heard bike paths described as making
the cyclist "feel safer", but is that a good thing? Given that in any
altercation between a bike and an auto one never sees the auto in the
ditch waiting the ambulance and the bicycle pedaling off with a dent
in the fender.

Is the cyclist actually 'safer"? Is it good for the cyclist to "feel"
safer?

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Catrike Ryder]

Good Grief. Nobody is going to make you ride where you don't want to
ride. You can keep on "taking the lane." Others have different
priorities, and apparently, there's enough of them to get the
facilities where they want to ride.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/6/2024 12:55 PM, sms wrote:
> On 2/5/2024 6:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But what is actually happening? Is auto traffic declining and bicycle
>> traffic increasing?
>
> Not sure about auto traffic declining, but bicycle traffic is absolutely
> increasing in areas that have installed bicycle infrastructure.

Bicycle traffic may be increasing in _some_ areas that have installed
bicycle infrastructure. But it's not increasing in other areas that have
installed bicycle infrastructure.

Then there's the question of how much it's increasing. Raising an
American city's bike mode share from 0.3% to 0.4% counts as
"increasing," strictly speaking; but it's an increase from negligible to
negligible.

And BTW, those are typical values for U.S. cities. One advocacy
organization recently _bragged_ that NYC hit 1% bike mode share!

Spending a million dollars per mile to get a couple more people
occasionally riding bikes makes no sense.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Without, in almost every case I've tried. For one thing, if you remove
the bike lane stripe, you actually have more debris-free pavement.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 2/6/2024 2:44 PM, John B. wrote:

> Is the cyclist actually 'safer"? Is it good for the cyclist to "feel"
> safer?

Yes, the statistics to bear out the fact that cyclists are safer when
separated from vehicles.

See <https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/5/303.full> and
<https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/7/2024 11:44 AM, sms wrote:
> On 2/6/2024 2:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>> Is the cyclist actually 'safer"? Is it good for the cyclist to "feel"
>> safer?
>
> Yes, the statistics to bear out the fact that cyclists are safer when
> separated from vehicles.
>
> See <https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/19/5/303.full> and
> <https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190529113036.htm>.

Alternately, see https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2193

"Compared with cycling on lanes of major roads without bicycle
facilities, the risk of crashing or falling was lower on conventional
bike lanes (adjusted OR=0.53; 95% CI=0.33, 0.86) and local roads with
(adjusted OR=0.31; 95% CI=0.13, 0.75) or without bicycle facilities or
traffic calming (adjusted OR=0.39; 95% CI=0.23, 0.65). Protected bike
lanes with heavy separation (tall, continuous barriers or grade and
horizontal separation) were associated with lower risk (adjusted
OR=0.10; 95% CI=0.01, 0.95), but those with lighter separation (e.g.,
parked cars, posts, low curb) had similar risk to major roads when one
way (adjusted OR=1.19; 95% CI=0.46, 3.10) and higher risk when they were
two way (adjusted OR=11.38; 95% CI=1.40, 92.57)"


Let's review that. So compared to major roads without any bike facilities:

They found adding a paint stripe (which many facilities proponents say
"That's not good enough!!!") cut risk about in half. (OR=.53)

Minor or "local" roads with bike lane stripes had roughly 1/3 the risk
of major roads with no bike facilities. (OR=0.31)

But "Local" roads with no bike facilities had roughly the same level of
safety as those with facilities. (OR=0.39) So adding those stripes to
local roads is hardly worth it.

Heavily "protected" bike lanes had very low risk (OR=0.10) IF they were
one way. But deeper into the paper, that was dominated by such bike
lanes over bridges, where no intersections could occur. And
intersections are the real problem for car-bike crashes. That's where
you get crossing paths and surprises.

Lightly "protected" bike lanes (flex posts, curbs, even parked cars!)
were slightly MORE dangerous than major roads with no facilities!
(OR=1.19) as long as they were one-way.

And the most "stylish" facility these days, the bi-directional
"protected" bike lanes? They were over 11 times as dangerous as a major
road with no bike facilities at all! (Odds ratio OR=11.38)

How come? There can be many reasons, but it's likely that a big one is
half the bicyclists pop into intersections from directions and locations
where motorists don't normally have to look. Here's a good example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE

So the "bike lanes make you safer" argument is simplistic at best.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

I tried that in San Francisco and alternate routes that were not also wall to wall traffic actually had pavement surfaces turned to gravel. Google
Maps kept trying to route me on those.

[Tom Kunich]

Particularly on long distance travels. North on the peninsula from Palo Alto to San Francisco doesn't have ANY low traffic side roads and there are few bike lanes but it is clear that where there ARE bike lanes that bicycle travel is much easier. Middlefield road doesn't have a bike lane and really sucks. El Camino Real is outright dangerous. The road that changes its name all of the time from Airport Blvd or Bayshore or 3rd has a bike lane on it over most of its length and travel is so much easier that I find it shocking that others don't agree.

[Roger Merriman]

Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
design how ever newly constructed it is.

Number of roads locally have wands and what not, this doesn’t turn them
into innovative or ever segregated cycleways in any meaningful sense.

Roger Merriman

[Tom Kunich]

But it does inform the drivers that bicycles may be present.

[Catrike Ryder]

My goodness, a "study" done by insurance companies. Gosh, I'm sure
they don't have an agenda.

[Roger Merriman]

It’s london lots of bikes, highly likely to encounter at least a few. And
thus for all of london drivers faults they are generally aware that it’s
likely that they will encounter a bike or e-scooter and so on.

Roger Merriman

[sms]

I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest
of the world.

[John B.]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 15:48:08 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 2/7/2024 12:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
>>>> closed mind about these things.
>>>
>>> Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
>>> problems have vanished recently.
>>>
>>> The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
>>> been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
>>> local facilities that are less than five years old!
>>>
>> Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
>> design how ever newly constructed it is.
>>
>> Number of roads locally have wands and what not, this doesn’t turn them
>> into innovative or ever segregated cycleways in any meaningful sense.
>
>I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
>claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest
>of the world.

Goodness! Do you mean that what happens to me isn't representative of
what happens in the rest of the world :-?


--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

Much like Santa Clara in that regard.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/7/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>
>>> The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
>>> closed mind about these things.
>>
>> Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
>> problems have vanished recently.
>>
>> The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
>> been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
>> local facilities that are less than five years old!
>>
> Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
> design how ever newly constructed it is.

I thought I'd described the bi-directional "protected" bike lane
separated by concrete plus posts near the downtown. And a bi-directional
bike+ped sidepath along one of the more important downtown streets,
separated from the roadway by several feet of grass or something - I
forget. Those are both very trendy, and both very unused.

If those aren't sufficiently trendy, what exactly are you wanting built?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
>
> I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
> claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest
> of the world.

Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of
cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.

Perhaps he should take notes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Ryder]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:06:43 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Here, there are several examples bike paths seperated from the
road/street by grass that are quite heavily used. I'm looking forward
to a new one opening soon. It will fill in a gap in what will be over
two hundred miles of interconnected mostly rural trail.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
>>
>> I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
>> claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest
>> of the world.
>
>Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of
>cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.

Those rides were a long time ago, according to what I've read.

[Roger Merriman]

Indeed, my experience with road bikes in detail is now some 10 years in the
past, I’ve hired one on holiday few years back and so on but it’s different
to owning one.

My bikes are MTB/gravel bikes so clearly a cross over in technology
(gravel) but there are differences.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/7/2024 3:48 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2024 7:22 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The world has changed need to try some more modern stuff and have a less
>>>> closed mind about these things.
>>>
>>> Roger, you've made similar statements before - as if bike facility
>>> problems have vanished recently.
>>>
>>> The world has not changed. The remarks I made apply to the stuff that's
>>> been installed in our area within the last year, and even more to some
>>> local facilities that are less than five years old!
>>>
>> Your description is of some cones/wands so hardly cutting edge or new
>> design how ever newly constructed it is.
>
> I thought I'd described the bi-directional "protected" bike lane
> separated by concrete plus posts near the downtown. And a bi-directional
> bike+ped sidepath along one of the more important downtown streets,
> separated from the roadway by several feet of grass or something - I
> forget. Those are both very trendy, and both very unused.

Unless you have a counter I’d park the unused even busy stuff can have
clear moments hence cities do tend to put in the counters to stop folks
doing the clickbate stuff.

>
> If those aren't sufficiently trendy, what exactly are you wanting built?
>

You said wands and unprotected junctions.

Roger Merriman

[John B.]

I'm not forecasting anything but now that you have 200+ miles of
bicycle lane will the next step be "Now that they have their own road
they don't need ours".
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Roger Merriman]

I’d hazard a guess that it’s probably not generally useful for utility for
example cycling, I do happen to,use Parks trails which absolutely where
intended for leisure than utility, though some have changed usage with
time, ie industrial to leisure.

Roger Merriman

[sms]

On 2/7/2024 4:22 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Goodness! Do you mean that what happens to me isn't representative of
> what happens in the rest of the world :-?

Hard to believe, I know. Not knowing this is as bad as not knowing how
to pronounce "indictable."
<https://www.tiktok.com/@meidastouch/video/7330706946368032030>.

[sms]

On 2/7/2024 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:

<snip>

> Much like Santa Clara in that regard.

Well that's why I always state "in my area" or "in the Bay Area" or "in
Silicon Valley," or "in New York City." I don't try to extrapolate my
experiences onto the whole world.

[sms]

On 2/8/2024 4:59 AM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> I'm not forecasting anything but now that you have 200+ miles of
> bicycle lane will the next step be "Now that they have their own road
> they don't need ours".

Yes, that will be the attitude of some drivers, drivers that wonder why
the cyclist is not using the provided infrastructure, believing them to
be unclear on why the bicycle infrastructure was provided.

[sms]

On 2/8/2024 5:58 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> I’d hazard a guess that it’s probably not generally useful for utility for
> example cycling, I do happen to,use Parks trails which absolutely where
> intended for leisure than utility, though some have changed usage with
> time, ie industrial to leisure.

That is not the case in my area. The separated infrastructure is heavily
used for "utility" cycling. In both the case of separated bike lanes,
and multi-use paths, they tend to be faster than using regular traffic
lanes and surface streets respectively.

The industrial and commercial development in Silicon Valley tends to be
toward the northeast while the major housing areas tend to be in the
southwest. The multi-use paths tend to run along creeks that flow into
the San Francisco Bay that also happen to go from the housing-rich areas
to the jobs-rich areas.*

Los Gatos Creek Trail:
<https://parks.sccgov.org/sites/g/files/exjcpb961/files/396244los_gatos_creek_part1.pdf>
Goes by Netflix and a bunch of smaller companies, then all the way into
downtown San Jose (with one unfinished gap where you have to use surface
streets)

Stevens Creek Trail:
<https://padailypost.com/2021/07/10/racist-lurks-on-stevens-creek-trail/stevens-creek-trail/>.
Goes to Microsoft and Google, with connections to other trails that go
north to Meta.

San Tomas Aquino Trail:
<https://hiiker-production-public.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/emxokbwhfme8ybj13o6g0wcxn8xv>.
Goes to Intel, Nvidia, Levi's stadium, and connects to other trails that
go to Cisco, Samsung, and other companies.

Unfortunately, the big fruit company in my city was able to prevent a
multi-use trail that would have run through a corner of their property,
a trail that would have been very useful
<https://i.imgur.com/Fx6jH0q.png>. However they have funded a lot of new
infrastructure that goes to their various campuses, and are funding
another MUP that will connect to their newer campus, but it will not be
really great for recreation since it's right next to a freeway:
<https://walkbikecupertino.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Tamien-Innu-trail-segments.png>

* Disclaimer: None of these trails are anywhere near Ohio.

[Roger Merriman]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/7/2024 5:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Much like Santa Clara in that regard.
>
> Well that's why I always state "in my area" or "in the Bay Area" or "in
> Silicon Valley," or "in New York City." I don't try to extrapolate my
> experiences onto the whole world.
>

Even within my area london it’s variable I pass some stuff that simply
isn’t of much use I’d need to stop turn join the brief shared path and so
on total waste of time, one is near a school so possibly for that reason
though it’s quite old and predates the school I believe.

Ie runs the range from useless to meh to that’s helpful to that’s good.

And these are works in progress in general the move away from car centric
cities is that trial and error what works somewhere may not elsewhere. Or
for others?

I for example have no use for either folding bikes or ride share, which is
heavily used in London and other places though I believe not Dutch cities?
For similar reasons I have a bike and I tend not to multi mode travel.

Ie folks needs/wants do differ and it is a changing environment.

Roger Merriman

[Roger Merriman]

At least within uk old railways lot where freight not passenger so even if
named for closest villages/towns it’s fair diversion to them.

Ie they make great leisure trips but mostly not utility, which is different
to a line within a city, which london has a few and do tend to connect and
have minimal junctions for obvious reasons.

Though often they are kept so can be repurposed ie light rail new lines
laid and so on, or used for non passenger uses such a driver change over

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/8/2024 6:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Catrike Ryder <Sol...@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
>>>> claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest
>>>> of the world.
>>>
>>> Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of
>>> cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
>>
>> Those rides were a long time ago, according to what I've read.
>>
>>> Perhaps he should take notes.
>>
> Indeed, my experience with road bikes in detail is now some 10 years in the
> past, I’ve hired one on holiday few years back and so on but it’s different
> to owning one.

The last time I rode my bike on a dedicated bike facility in a major
city in a different state was roughly four months ago, IIRC. I think
that bike facility was maybe two years old. I believe I posted here
about a near-conflict with a woman on a cell phone driving across the
bike path.

It's simply false to claim that "the old stuff was no good, the new
stuff is great." Unless there's lots of new stuff in the past three months.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

That's not a problem; it's a feature.

Abysmal projects eventually (some sooner, some later) get
replaced with a new project, new contracts, new kickbacks.
Eenvelopes change hands to locate it near one property and
others to move it away from another property. It's in the
nature of government.

[Rolf Mantel]

I'm sorry I don't find any usage numbers for those trails, similar to
<https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/229568/Analysis%20Report%20of%20Minnesota%20Bicycle%20%26%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Volume%20%282017-2020%29.pdf?sequence=1>
for Minnesota.

Do you think 800 bikes per weekday is nothing or a lot?

In my state, we need a minimum usage expectation of 2,000 daily
passenger miles per mile of trail for a state bike express route to be
built, and a minimum usage expectation of 1,500 for state subsidies of a
local bike express route.

Rolf

[Frank Krygowski]

> Ie they make great leisure trips but mostly not utility...

Exactly. In Columbus Ohio and Pittsburgh Pennsylvania and Beaverton
Oregon (and others) I've ridden riverside or creekside trails that are
generally pleasant except perhaps where they have some really weird
street crossings. But as with the ones linked in the post above, their
practical transportation benefit - if any! - applies only to the very
few who live quite close to the trail and whose destination is also
quite close to it. Most people who are afraid of normal streets and who
live a mile away from the trail will not ride to it.

A prerequisite for such a trail is some sort of barrier that greatly
restricts cross traffic, because no municipality is likely to give
non-stop right of way to a bike trail crossing a surface street. Rivers,
creeks and freeways can act as such barriers, and invite a parallel
trail. But those typically pass near only a small portion of a city's
population or its business destinations.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/8/2024 6:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> I thought I'd described the bi-directional "protected" bike lane
>> separated by concrete plus posts near the downtown. And a bi-directional
>> bike+ped sidepath along one of the more important downtown streets,
>> separated from the roadway by several feet of grass or something - I
>> forget. Those are both very trendy, and both very unused.
>
> Unless you have a counter I’d park the unused even busy stuff can have
> clear moments hence cities do tend to put in the counters to stop folks
> doing the clickbate stuff.

Roger, nobody is going to install a counter on the bi-directional
"protected" one that has been in place for a few years. I doubt any
local agency would even think about doing a count, in part because it's
pretty obvious a counter would demonstrate the project was a failure.
And I suspect the same is true for the newest one, just a few months
old, in the downtown.

Again, I'm pretty active in our local bike club. I've been in
conversations with many members, all who have said the facility is
useless and unused.

>> If those aren't sufficiently trendy, what exactly are you wanting built?
>>
>
> You said wands and unprotected junctions.

Talk to me about unprotected junctions, because I don't understand your
point. Are you saying that any bike facility has to have some fancy
special treatment at each intersection? What is your minimum acceptable
standard for that special treatment? (And what does it cost?)

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/8/2024 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Abysmal projects eventually (some sooner, some later) get replaced with
> a new project, new contracts, new kickbacks. Eenvelopes change hands to
> locate it near one property and others to move it away from another
> property.  It's in the nature of government.

Vaguely related: One of my Christmas gifts was a collection of Mike
Royko columns. You'd like his proposal (from the 1967) of a new Seal for
the city of Chicago. It featured two hands shaking, with paper currency
being transferred, and a new city motto: "Ubi Est Mea."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 19:59:16 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Who is they?

The fact is that with all the "bike facilities" around here, the few
bicyclists on streets and roads aren't enough to take note of, let
alone make anyone want to ban them. I've never been held up by a
take_the_laner."

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 12:05:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/8/2024 6:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Catrike Ryder <Sol...@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
>>>>> claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest
>>>>> of the world.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of
>>>> cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
>>>
>>> Those rides were a long time ago, according to what I've read.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps he should take notes.
>>>
>> Indeed, my experience with road bikes in detail is now some 10 years in the
>> past, I’ve hired one on holiday few years back and so on but it’s different
>> to owning one.
>
>The last time I rode my bike on a dedicated bike facility in a major
>city in a different state was roughly four months ago, IIRC. I think
>that bike facility was maybe two years old. I believe I posted here
>about a near-conflict with a woman on a cell phone driving across the
>bike path.

Pittsburgh doesn't count. It's not much more than bikie ride away from
your town.

[Roger Merriman]

As ever depends, what you’re comparing with, the cycleways in london with
the auto counters you’d need to add another zero.

Older oddities such as my cycleway probably doesn’t get that per month!

>
> In my state, we need a minimum usage expectation of 2,000 daily
> passenger miles per mile of trail for a state bike express route to be
> built, and a minimum usage expectation of 1,500 for state subsidies of a
> local bike express route.
>
> Rolf
>
>
>
>

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

+1
I was a loyal Royko reader for many years.

Chicago political criminals are more open, one might say
brazen, but not morally different from any other grifter in
any other administration.

[Roger Merriman]

Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2/8/2024 6:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Catrike Ryder <Sol...@old.bikers.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
>>>>> claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest
>>>>> of the world.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of
>>>> cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
>>>
>>> Those rides were a long time ago, according to what I've read.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps he should take notes.
>>>
>> Indeed, my experience with road bikes in detail is now some 10 years in the
>> past, I’ve hired one on holiday few years back and so on but it’s different
>> to owning one.
>
> The last time I rode my bike on a dedicated bike facility in a major
> city in a different state was roughly four months ago, IIRC. I think
> that bike facility was maybe two years old. I believe I posted here
> about a near-conflict with a woman on a cell phone driving across the
> bike path.

But by definition that rules out a innovative segregated cycleway,
certainly the stuff built in london it’s very difficult for that to happen
or even impossible in some places, ie junctions and crossings having
infrastructure after all the junction is the danger zone.

>
> It's simply false to claim that "the old stuff was no good, the new
> stuff is great." Unless there's lots of new stuff in the past three months.
>

Cities are becoming less car friendly see car parking by car size/emissions
and so on, and so infrastructure is added bit by bit.

Only place they did is the stuff built with the roads ie added a cycleway
as the road was upgraded to a dual carriageway.

Sadly just because it’s new doesn’t mean stuff isn’t car centric, one of
the local (wales) roads that had awful junctions but due to politics ie
wanted a big infrastructure project plus idea it would bring wealth to the
Welsh valleys (old steel/iron towns) which clearly much like one more lane
isn’t happening.

But they have due to there car centric focus made access more difficult
with roundabout routes to rights of ways and access right next to high
speed traffic which precludes horses for example.

Ie it’s an old school design very much cars and bare minimum for others and
has worsened access for others even.

Roger Merriman

[sms]

On 2/8/2024 8:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> At least within uk old railways lot where freight not passenger so even if
> named for closest villages/towns it’s fair diversion to them.
>
> Ie they make great leisure trips but mostly not utility, which is different
> to a line within a city, which london has a few and do tend to connect and
> have minimal junctions for obvious reasons.
>
> Though often they are kept so can be repurposed ie light rail new lines
> laid and so on, or used for non passenger uses such a driver change over
> and so on.

We have one old railway line that goes to a cement factory that was
recently shut down. There was only maybe one train a week when it was
open. It would be a great bike trail, even with the grade crossings.
It's already an unofficial, unpaved, trail and the railroad ignores its
use. There have been efforts for many years to "formalize" the trail.
Now that the cement plant is shut down the railroad may want to sell off
the tracks and right-of-way.

[sms]

On 2/8/2024 9:20 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:

> I'm sorry I don't find any usage numbers for those trails, similar to
> <https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/229568/Analysis%20Report%20of%20Minnesota%20Bicycle%20%26%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Volume%20%282017-2020%29.pdf?sequence=1>
> for Minnesota.
>
> Do you think 800 bikes per weekday is nothing or a lot?
>
> In my state, we need a minimum usage expectation of 2,000 daily
> passenger miles per mile of trail for a state bike express route to be
> built, and a minimum usage expectation of 1,500 for state subsidies of a
> local bike express route.

I saw one article, from 2015, that said 2000 cyclists per morning
commute on the Stevens Creek Trail. If each one only rode 0.5 miles in
the morning and another 0.5 miles in the evening then that would be 2000
miles per day. Since 2015 the trail has been lengthened, and it's also
heavily used by recreational cyclists.

Of the other trails I listed, the Los Gatos Creek Trail is extremely
popular and certainly meets that criteria of 2000 miles per day.

The San Tomas Aquino trail is primarily for commuting, the Audobon
society calls it an "unglamorous trail." It runs directly behind Nvidia
and Intel as well as several other industrial parks. I used to use this
trail for commuting. I don't know the usage numbers, I'd say a few
hundred per day during the week in good weather, less on the weekend.

Trails along creeks and rivers, in this area, are relatively inexpensive
to build because there is almost always already an unpaved service road
used by the water districts to go in and do maintenance a couple of
times a year (cleaning debris out of the creek). So they'll close
sections of the MUP for a few hours when they go in. The water districts
encourage multi-use trails to be built but they don't pay for the
construction. One positive aspect of building a trail is that it
discourages encampments along creeks and rivers, though sometimes they
appear anyway.

In my city, we just completed a short multi-use trail along a creek a
year ago. It's very well used, primarily by pedestrians for recreation.

[sms]

On 2/8/2024 11:04 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>

>> The last time I rode my bike on a dedicated bike facility in a major
>> city in a different state was roughly four months ago, IIRC. I think
>> that bike facility was maybe two years old. I believe I posted here
>> about a near-conflict with a woman on a cell phone driving across the
>> bike path.
>
> But by definition that rules out a innovative segregated cycleway,
> certainly the stuff built in london it’s very difficult for that to happen
> or even impossible in some places, ie junctions and crossings having
> infrastructure after all the junction is the danger zone.

Thank goodness a clueless driver with a cell phone never causes any
problems for cyclists riding with traffic!

But seriously, around here, for MUPs there are often at-grade crossings,
with crossing lights, initially, then as money is available there are
overpasses or underpasses constructed, at least for heavily used MUPs.

For separated bike lanes, three of the unintended positive consequences
are 1) drivers slow down because they perceive the road as being
narrower, even though the lanes are the same width as when there was a
painted bike lane, 2) drivers pay more attention to their driving
because they can't drift onto the shoulder anymore, 3) drivers can't
park in the bike lane anymore, even though it was never legal in the
first place.

Of course the biggest positive aspect of the separated infrastructure is
increased safety. The second biggest is the increase in cycling that the
new infrastructure causes.

[John B.]

I've always been a bit amused at Frankie's bragging, "Oh I rode a
bicycle", as after all, riding a bike is just another means of
transportation. Does someone who just came back from a vacation trip
out "West" stand around bragging, "I just drove my car to Omaha... And
back"

Oh Yes, I saw my little 6 year old girl. She was helping her mother
buy groceries at the market. So from a single skilled person who can
only claim "Oh, I rode a bicycle" She has advanced to a multi skilled
person who can now brag "I ride a bicycle", and I can buy the
groceries, too."
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Roger Merriman]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 2/8/2024 8:43 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> At least within uk old railways lot where freight not passenger so even if
>> named for closest villages/towns it’s fair diversion to them.
>>
>> Ie they make great leisure trips but mostly not utility, which is different
>> to a line within a city, which london has a few and do tend to connect and
>> have minimal junctions for obvious reasons.
>>
>> Though often they are kept so can be repurposed ie light rail new lines
>> laid and so on, or used for non passenger uses such a driver change over
>> and so on.
>
> We have one old railway line that goes to a cement factory that was
> recently shut down. There was only maybe one train a week when it was
> open. It would be a great bike trail, even with the grade crossings.
> It's already an unofficial, unpaved, trail and the railroad ignores its
> use. There have been efforts for many years to "formalize" the trail.
> Now that the cement plant is shut down the railroad may want to sell off
> the tracks and right-of-way.
>

I guess the question is whether it might reopen in the future, certainly
number of london railways have opened/closed number of times, even some
tunnels under the Thames have been reused/repurposed and indeed been at
times unused.

Others are more clear cut and unlikely to reopen.

Roger Merriman

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/8/2024 5:43 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 23:08:41 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2024 6:48 PM, sms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a dream that "he who must not be named" would stop trying to
>>>> claim that what happens in Poland Ohio is not representative of the rest
>>>> of the world.
>>>
>>> Mr. Scharf (AKA "sms") seems to forget that I've ridden in hundreds of
>>> cities, 47 U.S. states and about ten other countries.
>>>

>>> Perhaps he should take notes.
>
>
> I've always been a bit amused at Frankie's bragging, "Oh I rode a

> bicycle"...

Let's review. Scharf implies that all I know is my own suburban village.

I respond that I've ridden very extensively in many, many places.

John, read this slowly: That means my knowledge is much greater than
just my village.

Got that?

Or is that too confusing? If so, tell me what part of it confuses you.
I'll try to help.

BTW, I have noticed that you never "brag" about any bike rides. I
wonder: Do you ever ride?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/8/2024 2:04 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> Cities are becoming less car friendly see car parking by car size/emissions
> and so on, and so infrastructure is added bit by bit.

If cities do want to decrease car use, the key is to make the city less
car friendly. Make it inconvenient to drive.

Some strategies that have been used are lowering speed limits, reducing
"through" access (especially in residential neighborhoods), reducing
parking space counts, increasing cost of parking, imposing congestion
pricing or other fees for entering the city, etc.

Strategies like those directly attack the negative aspects of cars in
cities. They are direct disincentives to car use.

Instead we're continuing to design cities for the convenience of
motorists over everyone else, with wide fast roads, acres of asphalt
parking, low density development etc. It's silly to do that, then hope
that some nice bike lanes will cause lots of folks to abandon their very
convenient cars.

Here's the problem with disincentives for motorists: Most voters are
motorists. They may want the _other_ drivers to switch to bikes or
walking or mass transit or whatever. But if you restrict their _own_
driving or parking, they'll vote you out of office.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

That was established by the great demographers at The Onion:

https://www.theonion.com/report-98-percent-of-u-s-commuters-favor-public-trans-1819565837

[Frank Krygowski]

On 2/8/2024 2:31 PM, sms wrote:
> On 2/8/2024 9:20 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry I don't find any usage numbers for those trails, similar to
>> <https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/229568/Analysis%20Report%20of%20Minnesota%20Bicycle%20%26%20Pedestrian%20Traffic%20Volume%20%282017-2020%29.pdf?sequence=1>
>> for Minnesota.
>>
>> Do you think 800 bikes per weekday is nothing or a lot?
>>
>> In my state, we need a minimum usage expectation of 2,000 daily
>> passenger miles per mile of trail for a state bike express route to be
>> built, and a minimum usage expectation of 1,500 for state subsidies of
>> a local bike express route.
>
> I saw one article, from 2015, that said 2000 cyclists per morning
> commute on the Stevens Creek Trail. If each one only rode 0.5 miles in
> the morning and another 0.5 miles in the evening then that would be 2000
> miles per day.

How many motorized vehicle miles per day for (roughly) that same corridor?

I just finished a ride for a social visit plus some utility shopping
that included a road with 30,000 vehicles per day through a five mile
stretch. I mostly used parallel streets; but that figure is good for
context.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Yes, established eloquently!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

I sure wish that the city I live in was becoming less car friendly rather then more pro cars. The way they plan the design of and then build roundabouts in this region it's readily apparent the bicyclists and/or pedestrians are an afterthought if they're even considered at all.

There's one lights controlled crossing near a school in a city near me where they decided not to put in a roundabout after a couple of students were killed trying to cross on in a nearby city. Now the planners want to put in that roundabout after all and want to make a tunnel under the road for the students to cross in.

Cheers

[Catrike Ryder]

Some people seem to like having the government control them. That's
something I'll never understand.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 18:29:48 -0500, Frank Krygowski

<CHUCKLE> Most people are self secure enough that they have no need to
brag. The only reason people brag is to get others admire them, but
it's self defeating because nobody admires a braggart. Most people
just laugh at braggarts. You narcissists seem unable to understand
that.

[Catrike Ryder]

On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 05:43:13 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I'm always greatly amused. Most people just roll their eyes and laugh
at braggarts. It's such a childish thing to do.

"Look ma, no hands." Didn't he brag about doing that a while back?

[sms]

On 2/8/2024 2:43 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> I've always been a bit amused at Frankie's bragging, "Oh I rode a
> bicycle", as after all, riding a bike is just another means of
> transportation. Does someone who just came back from a vacation trip
> out "West" stand around bragging, "I just drove my car to Omaha... And
> back"

"How do you know someone's a vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you."

"How do you know that 'he who must not be named' rode a bicycle? Don't
worry, he'll tell you."

[sms]

On 2/8/2024 3:10 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

<snip>

> I guess the question is whether it might reopen in the future, certainly
> number of london railways have opened/closed number of times, even some
> tunnels under the Thames have been reused/repurposed and indeed been at
> times unused.

Hopefully that cement plant, one of, it not the biggest, polluter in
California, will not ever re-open.

But the tracks can stay if they want, there is sufficient land on the
side for a trail. It's a single track.

Sad what transpired in Santa Clara Valley with public transit.
<https://cityasnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/sociecity-1920-2012-rail-lines-san-jose.jpg>.

[AMuzi]

People demand punitive regulation and prosecution of 'Those
People' and are surprised when Leviathan turns on them as well.

[AMuzi]

Yeah, Californians don't need that steenkin concrete, or the
jobs, taxes and whatnot. Californians are happy to live in
yurts made from prairie grasses (no animal skins!)and cook
with dung fires. 'Closer to The Earth' donchaknow.