Boston bike advocacy has tectonic shift -- supports facilities
Peter Cole
Tom Sherman °_°
> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infrastructure/
>
>
> Well, it's a step.
How about holding a demonstration outside the DA's office every time a
motorist is at fault for maiming or killing a cyclist, but is not
charged with a serious offense?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infrastructure/
>>
>>
>> Well, it's a step.
>
> How about holding a demonstration outside the DA's office every time a
> motorist is at fault for maiming or killing a cyclist, but is not
> charged with a serious offense?
>
I like my pound of flesh as much as the next guy, but I'd still rather
work on prevention. Calming and reduction of auto traffic in thickly
settled areas gets my vote.
Jay Beattie
> Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
>
> >> Well, it's a step.
>
> > How about holding a demonstration outside the DA's office every time a
> > motorist is at fault for maiming or killing a cyclist, but is not
> > charged with a serious offense?
>
> I like my pound of flesh as much as the next guy, but I'd still rather
> work on prevention. Calming and reduction of auto traffic in thickly
> settled areas gets my vote.
I like wide, well paved roads. All this bicycle infrastructure often
makes things worse, with the exception of bike lanes ON the roadway.
Dedicated off-road facilities turn in to pedestrain trails. Bicycle
boulevards often have spurious hard-scape devices that turn in to
hazards. Bicycle shelters -- bike lanes between the curb and parked
cars -- are plain dangerous. Applied boxes and three-point lines and
what have you get slippery after the second snow and a little
scraping.
All this worry about riders "feeling comfortable" or "less stressed"
is psychotic -- and it assumes there are hundreds and millions of
people who really want to ride except for being afraid (afraid in a
way that a green bike box will fix). That's BS. The people who tell
me that they would ride if it were only more safe are typically
fatties with no history of riding, even at beach resorts. We should
just make the roads wider, fix them and put on a stripe. Everybody
wins. -- Jay Beattie.
Peter Cole
I like wide roads, too. Problem is, around here (Boston) there isn't
any more room. What typically has happened is that more car lanes have
been added to the same road width, making life more difficult for
cyclists. I'd like to get some back. If that necessitates bike lanes,
I'm for it.
Portland has managed to double cycling in the last decade. It seems
they're doing something right, even if they're doing it wrong.
Jay Beattie
Demographics, increased population and high gas prices and a lot of
press. I'm not sure how much of it is infrastructure changes -- some
probably, but not enough to justify the $600 million price tag for our
new 2030 Bicycle Plan. I know a lot of this planning stuff is to stake
out federal funds made available for bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure and not for filling pot holes, so I'm not that shocked
by the plan or the price tag. But if those projects are funded by
increased taxes (property, business, income, sales), I'm going to
scream bloody murder. I'm not going to pay for fussy bicylcle
infrastructure when we need so much road repair around here. That
will piss off motorists and cause a backlash.-- Jay Beattie.
Tad McClellan
> The people who tell
> me that they would ride if it were only more safe are typically
> fatties with no history of riding, even at beach resorts.
Now you've gone and hurt my feelings.
> We should
> just make the roads wider,
And the airplane seats too while we're at it.
--
Tad McClellan
email: perl -le "print scalar reverse qq/moc.liamg\100cm.j.dat/"
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Frank Krygowski
> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra...
>
> Well, it's a step.
So is walking off a cliff. Shouldn't we make sure the step is in the
right direction?
I'm not against all bike facilities. But I'm certainly against people
who claim any bike facility is a good bike facility. Suddenly, that's
what Massbike seems to be doing.
Sounds like their "technical committee" might have consisted of two
poets, a painter, a yoga teacher and a performance artist. "Anything
is good. Ommmmmmmmm...."
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is
coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Frank,
At least they're not insisting that it's for the sake of sheep instead
of bicyclists:
"A letter was submitted from Mr. Baxter, Dundee, Hon. Secretary of the
Scottish Cyclists' Union, stating that numerous complaints had been
made regarding the leaving of hedge cutting on the highways, the
complaints being made more particularly with regard to the Dundee and
Arbroath Road, and stating that cyclists would feel obliged if the
attention of the Surveyor was called to the matter. It was agreed, on
the suggestion of Mr. Whyte Hatton, of Eassie, that the Surveyors be
asked to try to keep the roads as free from thorns as possible, for
the benefit of sheep passing, however, and not for the benefit of
cyclists."
--C.T.C. Monthly Gazette, June, 1895, p. 178
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Dan O
Well, I don't think it was the City of Portland that did it, I think
it was bike riders. Now, the city appears poised to create lots of
facilities in response.
One thing I really don't want is having where and how I can ride
substantially dictated. To be planned and managed traffic. Blech!
No fun. Sometimes I need to just wing it - make sort of like an
Enduro out of it.
(Of course, I don't ride in Portland, although I guess I'll have to
pedal on up there and give it a whirl sometime.)
I do like to hear about facilities happening, though - tells me the
straight people calling the shots don't all have their heads up the
tailpipe of the failed American Way.
Ben C
[...]
> We recently (Cambridge, England) managed to get 2 car lanes (1 of 2
> each way) turned into bike lanes. It's made that section of road a
> lot more pleasant.
Where's that?
Peter Cole
Cycling has increased over 100% since 2000, population more like 5%. Gas
prices were low through much of the decade, while cycling in Portland
grew steadily (compare cycling growth to gas prices 2000-2006, you won't
see much correlation).
I'm not sure what you mean by "demographics" -- bunch of Danes moved in?
Income? Portland family median seems about the same, or a little lower
than the national average. Age? Same as income. Portland is pretty white
-- is that it?
> I'm not sure how much of it is infrastructure changes -- some
> probably,
Well, that is the question, isn't it?
> but not enough to justify the $600 million price tag for our
> new 2030 Bicycle Plan.
I thought you didn't know.
Where did you get that "price tag"? The latest estimates I've seen are
$223M for an "80% plan" and $335M for a "world class" plan.
Even at $600M, I'd point out that Boston, a similarly sized city, just
spent over 25x that amount on a single road construction project.
Portland is aiming for a 25% share of total trips by bike. Quoted
studies in Denmark claim a $1/mile cycled health care cost benefit and a
200% rate of return (reduced health costs) on cycling infrastructure.
It's been interesting that in this year of intense debate over what to
do about the health care *cost* crisis in the US, very little attention
has been paid to the obvious lifestyle issues. The projected costs of
diabetes alone are predicted to break the bank. As a part of the boomer
bulge that's said to represent a huge unfunded (unfundable?) medical
liability, I feel that we're running out of time -- it's our lifestyle
that's not economically sustainable, and obesity will get us before
climate change does. Just a glance will reveal why it's not an equally
hot topic for Big Al Gore.
People have to be moved around the city one way or another. Money spent
on one facility is money that doesn't have to be spent on another. On a
per-capita basis, infrastructure costs for cycling facilities are
relative peanuts compared to private car and/or mass transit. Bikes
won't do the majority of people moving, even in a cycling utopia, but
they're transportational low hanging fruit and should be picked first.
To do otherwise is just dumb. To quibble over these relatively modest
costs is just dumb.
> I know a lot of this planning stuff is to stake
> out federal funds made available for bicycle and pedestrian
> infrastructure and not for filling pot holes, so I'm not that shocked
> by the plan or the price tag. But if those projects are funded by
> increased taxes (property, business, income, sales), I'm going to
> scream bloody murder. I'm not going to pay for fussy bicylcle
> infrastructure when we need so much road repair around here. That
> will piss off motorists and cause a backlash.-- Jay Beattie.
Even the large number you cite only amounts to $50/capita/year. Whether
that comes from the Feds, the state or local revenue sources makes
little difference. It's a pittance compared to the existing subsidies
(from all those sources) for the alternatives. Besides the compelling
health cost argument, a dollar spent on cycling saves more than a dollar
elsewhere. Of course, this is only true if the facilities get used. The
"Field of Dreams" argument ("build it and they will come") is what is
usually proffered. That argument requires a bit of faith, but what major
public works project doesn't? I'm sure that if the predicted cycling
numbers don't track projections that the budget will get reevaluated
over the 20 year projected term.
Lipitor and gym memberships aren't going to do it. Americans have to get
off their fat butts and get the blood pumping through their clogged and
brittle arteries. Obesity and related diseases is the health care crisis
of the century. The benefits of transportational cycling to health and
overall urban quality of life are not hypothetical. Neither is the
impact of infrastructure investment on the growth of cycling trip share.
There are ample examples. Portland is, quite sensibly, following the
lead of other, more progressive, communities. I hope Boston catches up.
Coincidentally, the major paper here in Boston had an article on obesity
rates by community today. Not surprisingly, many urban communities had
significantly lower rates than their outer suburban counterparts.
Experts felt the bulk of the difference was determined by the much
greater prevalence of walking and cycling over driving in the more
densely populated districts. This is not rocket science. The best way to
reduce the cost of medical care is to lower the need for it in the first
place. I'd rather be taxed for bike infrastructure than taxed for
medications and treatments for fat-related illness -- don't kid
yourself, that's the choice.
Peter Cole
They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and
The Netherlands. Not very controversial. You're essentially using the
"socialized bicycling" argument. That's swayed opinion for 40 years or
more, but fortunately the tide is turning. Don't fear, you won't have to
use facilities if you don't want, I'm sure there'll remain plenty of
unimproved roads, especially in your (red) neck of the woods.
Peter Cole
OMG, "Safe Routes to School" -- what a nightmare! Bike paths and lanes!
Bike parking! Intermodal facilities! What a world! Aieeee..... I'm
melting....
ISTEA begat TEA-21 which begat SAFETEA-LU. All were principly highway
funding bills.
For instance CA got $23.4B (2005-2009) SAFETEA-LU money, $18B for
highways, $5B for transit, $0.5B for "safety".
In all, SAFETEA-LU allocated a maximum of $4B out of almost $300B for
bicycle infrastructure. Under $3/capita/year.
Cycling is way underfunded in this country.
Frank Krygowski
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 2:26 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra...
>
> >> Well, it's a step.
>
> > So is walking off a cliff. Shouldn't we make sure the step is in the
> > right direction?
>
> > I'm not against all bike facilities. But I'm certainly against people
> > who claim any bike facility is a good bike facility. Suddenly, that's
> > what Massbike seems to be doing.
>
> > Sounds like their "technical committee" might have consisted of two
> > poets, a painter, a yoga teacher and a performance artist. "Anything
> > is good. Ommmmmmmmm...."
>
> The Netherlands. Not very controversial. You're essentially using the
> "socialized bicycling" argument. That's swayed opinion for 40 years or
> more, but fortunately the tide is turning. Don't fear, you won't have to
> use facilities if you don't want, I'm sure there'll remain plenty of
> unimproved roads, especially in your (red) neck of the woods.
Nice finish with the insult to my area, Peter. A lot of people would
consider that lowbrow.
But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are
following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a
goat. In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European
facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads, and they're
ignoring cyclists' campaigns in places like Germany to treat cyclists
as legitimate vehicle operators.
Massbike's site says "...the new policy definitively says “YES!” to
bicycle facilities – whether they are traditional, innovative, or even
experimental" and "... experimentation with innovative facilities
designed to improve bicyclist safety and comfort, such as bike boxes,
contraflow lanes, colored bike lanes, separated paths or cycle
tracks...”
Do you see anything in there that calls for careful analysis to be
sure the "innovative" or "experimental" facilities won't do more harm
than good? That they won't subject novice cyclists to additional
hazards?
For just one example, why the love of bike boxes? Do you and Massbike
not know that the preliminary data out of Portland is that they don't
help? Are you not aware that without additional delays from separate
traffic signals and special rules, the crossing movements that kill
cyclists are still likely?
The problem with the dreamy-eyed facilities lovers is that they don't
think in engineering terms. They think facility design is as easy as
drawing up an idealized cartoon of a "green" city, with no cars in
sight and all the cartoon people smiling in the sun.
By contrast, traffic engineers - good ones, anyway - get into details
analyzing how traffic moves, what motorists and cyclists expect, what
they are capable of, and how they will likely behave. When something
unusual is proposed, they like to be sure it's not blatantly stupid,
and if it's questionable, they prefer to follow proper experimental
protocols to test it and validate it.
I see none of that from Massbike, from Alta Design, from John Pucher,
from Portland's BTA, or from you. In your posts to this group, you've
repeatedly claimed that collision hazards for cyclists, blind corners,
mixing peds and cyclists, and other hazards are just fine. IOW, that
any bike facility is a good bike facility, and those dumb engineers
are just too damned careful.
That's a very pretty world, but it's imaginary. That will become
clear with the first fatality from dooring in a bike lane, or from a
head-on collision of a contraflow rider, or from riding into the blind
right side of a right turning truck - bike box or no.
Wait. I take that back. It's too optimistic. IIRC, the Boston area
already had a famous bike lane dooring fatality, so even that won't
shake sense into some heads.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
wrote:
>
>
> We recently (Cambridge, England) managed to get 2 car lanes (1 of 2
> each way) turned into bike lanes. It's made that section of road a
> lot more pleasant.
With regard to bike lanes, the question is always this: Would the
situation be better or worse with the _same_ total width of pavement,
but without the separating stripe?
In almost all cases, it would be better without the stripe. Stripes
cause traffic conflicts and accumulation of road debris.
If you want to encourage the timid riders who feel they need painted
permission to ride, I think sharrows are a far better idea.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is
> > coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> OMG, "Safe Routes to School" -- what a nightmare! Bike paths and lanes!
> Bike parking! Intermodal facilities! What a world! Aieeee..... I'm
> melting....
As usual, all emotion and no analysis.
Safe Routes to School has its good points. Kids should have
sidewalks, and neighborhood access to schools (as alternatives to only
four-lane access) makes sense. Nobody here has ever argued against
bike parking. Intermodality is great, including bike racks on buses
and bike space in trains.
But that's hardly the thrust of the "trendiest" advocates. Their
newest darlings are the bike box and the barrier-separated bikeway -
both of which are obviously problematic, if you've got any capacity
for motion analysis or any experience riding them. And of course, the
belief in the necessity of, and benefits of, bike lanes is totally
religious. As is the faith that completely separated bike trails will
one day take us everywhere we want to go.
> Cycling is way underfunded in this country.
If the money spent on one mile of our recreational rail-trail (falsely
claimed to be "transportational") were spent on traffic light sensors,
every light in my metro area would detect every bicycle. The money
that paid for the next mile of path would have put good bike parking
at every public building. The third mile of path would pay for racks
on every bus. The fourth mile would have paid for educational
billboards and public service announcements so motorists would begin
to learn respect for our rights. And that path goes on for many
miles.
The problem isn't the level of funding. It's the misdirection into
bad projects, at the pleading of starry-eyed dreamers.
- Frank Krygowski
Ben C
> On Mar 7, 9:18?am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
>> They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and
>> The Netherlands. Not very controversial. You're essentially using the
>> "socialized bicycling" argument. That's swayed opinion for 40 years or
>> more, but fortunately the tide is turning. Don't fear, you won't have to
>> use facilities if you don't want, I'm sure there'll remain plenty of
>> unimproved roads, especially in your (red) neck of the woods.
>
> Nice finish with the insult to my area, Peter. A lot of people would
> consider that lowbrow.
>
> But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are
> following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a
> goat. In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European
> facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads,
Even in NL I've heard. The problem is apparently you get hit at the
intersections between the bike lanes and roads.
Some facilities can be a positive benefit, but the main point IMO is to
fiercely oppose making them compulsory. If they're any good, they don't
need to be compulsory, because people will use them anyway.
In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_
compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly
death traps, it would kill cycling overnight.
There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them
because they are badly designed and suck, and then in the future someone
decides to make them compulsory.
Ben C
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> We recently (Cambridge, England) managed to get 2 car lanes (1 of 2
>> each way) �turned into bike lanes. �It's made that section of road a
>> lot more pleasant.
>
> With regard to bike lanes, the question is always this: Would the
> situation be better or worse with the _same_ total width of pavement,
> but without the separating stripe?
>
> In almost all cases, it would be better without the stripe. Stripes
> cause traffic conflicts and accumulation of road debris.
Also cars drive right next to the stripe. If there isn't one, they
actually tend to give you more room.
The only time a stripe can be useful is in traffic jams because it can
leave you a clear path to get up the inside. Otherwise you get cars
higgledly-piggedly across the road which you have to keep weaving in and
out of.
> If you want to encourage the timid riders who feel they need painted
> permission to ride, I think sharrows are a far better idea.
What's a sharrow?
Lou Holtman
> On 2010-03-07, Frank Krygowski<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 9:18?am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> [...]
>>> They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and
>>> The Netherlands. Not very controversial. You're essentially using the
>>> "socialized bicycling" argument. That's swayed opinion for 40 years or
>>> more, but fortunately the tide is turning. Don't fear, you won't have to
>>> use facilities if you don't want, I'm sure there'll remain plenty of
>>> unimproved roads, especially in your (red) neck of the woods.
>>
>> Nice finish with the insult to my area, Peter. A lot of people would
>> consider that lowbrow.
>>
>> But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are
>> following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a
>> goat. In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European
>> facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads,
>
> Even in NL I've heard. The problem is apparently you get hit at the
> intersections between the bike lanes and roads.
Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two way
bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general.
Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Ben,
A big sign painted on the middle of an ordinary traffic lane with
chevrons (the arrow) and a bicyclist figure (the share-the-lane part):
http://bikehugger.com/2006/12/whats-a-sharrow.html
I haven't seen any in Colorado, but we recently put up faintly related
yellow metal signs by some roads that show a bicycle (with no rider)
and say "share the road".
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Jobst Brandt
>>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is
>>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans.
>> OMG, "Safe Routes to School" -- what a nightmare! Bike paths and
>> lanes! Bike parking! Intermodal facilities! What a world!
>> Aieeee... I'm melting...
Locally bicycle lane and trail designers show their misunderstanding
of bicycling by making new bicycle paths with series of Ess curves to
help riders play with their bicycles that are only entertainment
anyway. They have done this where formerly there were straight
bicycle paths, the kind riders like to use.
Also, bicycle crossings of major multi-lane roads now have detector
loops rather than a large area push button for bicyclists, in the
direction of travel... so many riders cross the detector and ride to
the pedestrian "micro button" to get the light to change.
Unfortunately the pedestrian button turns on the green traffic light
AND the white pedestrian walk sign... for one minute while the bicycle
detector loop turns on only the green light for 30 seconds. Of course
that doesn't occur often because most bicyclists don't trust the
detector and press the pedestrian button.
Jobst Brandt
Nate Nagel
I don't really feel the need for bike lanes, although we do have some
here (usually on roads where there's not a whole lot of traffic, at
least when I'm on them)
the SINGLE thing that I think should be done that would make the biggest
difference to me personally would be to mandate that all new roads with
a speed limit greater than, say, 30 or 35 MPH constructed either have
paved shoulders or wide enough lanes that a bicycle and a car can safely
coexist without the car having to cross the center line (e.g. outlawing
construction of any more roads like the one that goes by my office,
which has a 45-55 MPH speed limit, depending on exactly where we're
talking about, but there is a minimum-legal-width lane in each
direction, and only a couple inches of pavement to the right of the
white stripe, in some areas with a curb and sidewalk. Now the 55 MPH
section could be "fixed" simply by widening the pavement by 6 feet or
so, were there a will to do it.)
If only that were done, I'd be riding a heck of a lot more, simply
because there'd be more places that I'd consider safely accessible by
bicycle.
On the upside, most of the places that I consider really unsafe to ride
a bicycle aren't that close to my house. Unfortunately, one of them is
my place of work :/ win some, lose some.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Ben,
Years ago, the well-meaning Pueblo city traffic department painted
bike lanes down Union Avenue:
http://i10.tinypic.com/4ti4j92.jpg
Every block follows the same weird pattern in that photo.
For most of the block, a bike lane runs between the traffic lane and
the parking strip.
At the end of the block, a sign announces that the bike lane simply
ends about fifty feet before the intersection.
Another sign announces that a mandatory right-hand turn lane takes the
place of the bike lane. (The parking strip vanishes, too.)
Damned if I know what a bike is supposed to do.
Maybe the bikes are supposed to merge with the cars turning right
every block at the traffic light?
Maybe the bikes are supposed to stop before the car lane takes over,
get off the road between the parked cars and onto the sidewalk, push
across the intersection in the pedestrian crosswalk, and then get back
on to pedal another block in the bike lane that reappears?
Maybe the bikes are supposed to swerve left into the main traffic lane
at every intersection, ride through the light, and then swerve back to
the right when the bike lane reappears?
The bicyclist in the photo shows the other problem. The bike obviously
has to go out into the traffic lane to turn left, while drivers honk
and shout at him to get back in the bike lane (which has vanished).
***
On my daily ride (nowhere near Union Avenue), I used to stop well over
to the right at the single traffic light.
Cars would drive up to the light, stop, and turn right.
After two of them hit me with their mirrors as they turned right, I
began to stop in the middle of the lane.
Having one set of vehicles turn right across a lane devoted to another
set of vehicles seems like a bad idea.
***
Bike lanes are well-meant, but I don't see how they handle
intersections.
If the bike tries to make a left turn, it has to leave the prescribed
bike lane and use the dmain traffic lane, right at an intersection,
the worst possible place.
If the bike tries to go straight through the intersection, the bike
risks an accident with a car turning right across the bike
lane--again, right at a traffic light, the worst possible place.
If the bike stays in the bike lane between the intersections, the
doors opening from parked cars are a constant threat, and so are cars
that have to cross the bike lane both ways between the main traffic
lane and the parking strip.
All these problems disappear if the bike just uses the same traffic
lane as other traffic, but the complaint is that the bikes slow the
traffic down.
Maybe someone has a photo that shows a bike lane that handles
intersections well?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Peter Cole
> On Mar 7, 9:18 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Mar 5, 2:26 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra...
>>>> Well, it's a step.
>>> So is walking off a cliff. Shouldn't we make sure the step is in the
>>> right direction?
>>> I'm not against all bike facilities. But I'm certainly against people
>>> who claim any bike facility is a good bike facility. Suddenly, that's
>>> what Massbike seems to be doing.
>>> Sounds like their "technical committee" might have consisted of two
>>> poets, a painter, a yoga teacher and a performance artist. "Anything
>>> is good. Ommmmmmmmm...."
>> They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and
>> The Netherlands. Not very controversial. You're essentially using the
>> "socialized bicycling" argument. That's swayed opinion for 40 years or
>> more, but fortunately the tide is turning. Don't fear, you won't have to
>> use facilities if you don't want, I'm sure there'll remain plenty of
>> unimproved roads, especially in your (red) neck of the woods.
>
> Nice finish with the insult to my area, Peter. A lot of people would
> consider that lowbrow.
If you want to continue to slander facility advocates, be my guest, but
you sound like an ignorant person -- i.e. a redneck, or a hick, if you'd
prefer.
> But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are
> following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a
> goat.
Nice.
> In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European
> facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads, and they're
> ignoring cyclists' campaigns in places like Germany to treat cyclists
> as legitimate vehicle operators.
Oh, Germany doesn't have bike facilities, I wasn't aware of that.
>
> Massbike's site says "...the new policy definitively says �YES!� to
> bicycle facilities � whether they are traditional, innovative, or even
> experimental" and "... experimentation with innovative facilities
> designed to improve bicyclist safety and comfort, such as bike boxes,
> contraflow lanes, colored bike lanes, separated paths or cycle
> tracks...�
>
> Do you see anything in there that calls for careful analysis to be
> sure the "innovative" or "experimental" facilities won't do more harm
> than good? That they won't subject novice cyclists to additional
> hazards?
The alternative is to continue to follow the defective cycling dogma and
finally wipe out cycling altogether. 50 years to make a case (i.e.
experiment) should be sufficient.
> For just one example, why the love of bike boxes? Do you and Massbike
> not know that the preliminary data out of Portland is that they don't
> help? Are you not aware that without additional delays from separate
> traffic signals and special rules, the crossing movements that kill
> cyclists are still likely?
>
> The problem with the dreamy-eyed facilities lovers
Nice.
> is that they don't
> think in engineering terms.
Except perhaps those of us who are engineers...
> They think facility design is as easy as
> drawing up an idealized cartoon of a "green" city, with no cars in
> sight and all the cartoon people smiling in the sun.
Continuing your crude caricatures and name calling doesn't add any
weight to your claims -- redneck.
> By contrast, traffic engineers - good ones, anyway - get into details
> analyzing how traffic moves, what motorists and cyclists expect, what
> they are capable of, and how they will likely behave. When something
> unusual is proposed, they like to be sure it's not blatantly stupid,
> and if it's questionable, they prefer to follow proper experimental
> protocols to test it and validate it.
>
> I see none of that from Massbike, from Alta Design, from John Pucher,
> from Portland's BTA, or from you. In your posts to this group, you've
> repeatedly claimed that collision hazards for cyclists, blind corners,
> mixing peds and cyclists, and other hazards are just fine. IOW, that
> any bike facility is a good bike facility, and those dumb engineers
> are just too damned careful.
>
> That's a very pretty world, but it's imaginary. That will become
> clear with the first fatality from dooring in a bike lane, or from a
> head-on collision of a contraflow rider, or from riding into the blind
> right side of a right turning truck - bike box or no.
>
> Wait. I take that back. It's too optimistic. IIRC, the Boston area
> already had a famous bike lane dooring fatality, so even that won't
> shake sense into some heads.
You are really a Johnny one note on all of this. Your way has been
tried. It failed. If you don't like facilities, don't use them.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world seems to be moving on.
Peter Cole
> On Mar 7, 10:20 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is
>>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans. -- Jay Beattie.
>> OMG, "Safe Routes to School" -- what a nightmare! Bike paths and lanes!
>> Bike parking! Intermodal facilities! What a world! Aieeee..... I'm
>> melting....
>
> As usual, all emotion and no analysis.
>
> Safe Routes to School has its good points. Kids should have
> sidewalks, and neighborhood access to schools (as alternatives to only
> four-lane access) makes sense. Nobody here has ever argued against
> bike parking. Intermodality is great, including bike racks on buses
> and bike space in trains.
>
> But that's hardly the thrust of the "trendiest" advocates. Their
> newest darlings are the bike box and the barrier-separated bikeway -
> both of which are obviously problematic, if you've got any capacity
> for motion analysis or any experience riding them. And of course, the
> belief in the necessity of, and benefits of, bike lanes is totally
> religious. As is the faith that completely separated bike trails will
> one day take us everywhere we want to go.
Frank, you're just making stuff up.
>> Cycling is way underfunded in this country.
>
> If the money spent on one mile of our recreational rail-trail (falsely
> claimed to be "transportational") were spent on traffic light sensors,
> every light in my metro area would detect every bicycle. The money
> that paid for the next mile of path would have put good bike parking
> at every public building. The third mile of path would pay for racks
> on every bus. The fourth mile would have paid for educational
> billboards and public service announcements so motorists would begin
> to learn respect for our rights. And that path goes on for many
> miles.
You paint false choices.
>
> The problem isn't the level of funding. It's the misdirection into
> bad projects, at the pleading of starry-eyed dreamers.
Label away, like a good redneck.
Jay Beattie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yikes Peter -- pot, kettle, black? Anyway, Frank is right about bike
boxes and barrier separated bikeways, both of which I live with daily
and either hate or think are unnecessary, and I was an original board
member of the BTA, winner of the Alice B. Toeclips Award and generally
a dyed in the wool infrastructure advocate. The boxes can be
downright dangerous after a few seasons.
As for rails-to-trails types of infrastructure, we have the
Springwater Corridor that many people do use for commuting, including
one of my co-workers. I hate Springwater because it is mixed use and
dangerous with people and their dogs, trikes, baby buggies, etc. --
but the slow-moving upright bar set seems to like it. The chip seal
also sucks, but that is a different issue.
Frank and I part company on bike lanes. -- Jay Beattie.
Peter Cole
> On 2010-03-07, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But from what I read about Massbike's new policy, you and they are
>> following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a
>> goat. In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European
>> facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads,
>
> Even in NL I've heard. The problem is apparently you get hit at the
> intersections between the bike lanes and roads.
Intersections are always the main problem with or without lanes.
>
> Some facilities can be a positive benefit, but the main point IMO is to
> fiercely oppose making them compulsory. If they're any good, they don't
> need to be compulsory, because people will use them anyway.
I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe
there'd be a justification for such fearmongering. But as it is, and is
ever likely to be, there will always be an abundance of routes without
facilities, which those who have a dislike of facilities can always use.
Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who
don't ride elsewhere.
> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_
> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly
> death traps, it would kill cycling overnight.
>
> There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them
Yes, theoretically, but they have been being built for quite some time
now -- around the world, and they get used -- usually heavily.
Peter Cole
> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two way
> bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general.
What's a "serious" cyclist (rhetorical question). Whoever they are,
they're a distinct minority. They're free to ride elsewhere.
> Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime.
Good luck finding those in a city.
Peter Cole
Fine, what about old roads?
> (e.g. outlawing
> construction of any more roads like the one that goes by my office,
> which has a 45-55 MPH speed limit, depending on exactly where we're
> talking about, but there is a minimum-legal-width lane in each
> direction, and only a couple inches of pavement to the right of the
> white stripe, in some areas with a curb and sidewalk. Now the 55 MPH
> section could be "fixed" simply by widening the pavement by 6 feet or
> so, were there a will to do it.)
And the room, and the money.
> If only that were done, I'd be riding a heck of a lot more, simply
> because there'd be more places that I'd consider safely accessible by
> bicycle.
>
> On the upside, most of the places that I consider really unsafe to ride
> a bicycle aren't that close to my house. Unfortunately, one of them is
> my place of work :/ win some, lose some.
Utility cycling isn't too practical in most low density areas, distances
are just too great. The whole facilities debate is really an urban issue
for the most part.
Ben C
> Ben C wrote:
[...]
> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe
> there'd be a justification for such fearmongering. But as it is, and is
> ever likely to be, there will always be an abundance of routes without
> facilities, which those who have a dislike of facilities can always use.
It's pretty annoying if you have to go twice the distance to get to work
in the morning because what was once a perfectly good road has been
ruined by facilitization.
> Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who
> don't ride elsewhere.
The majority of whom? Actual cyclists, or would-be cyclists?
>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_
>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly
>> death traps, it would kill cycling overnight.
>>
>> There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them
>
> Yes, theoretically, but they have been being built for quite some time
> now -- around the world, and they get used -- usually heavily.
Yes and they've been made compulsory in some places too.
Peter Cole
> On 2010-03-07, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
> [...]
>> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe
>> there'd be a justification for such fearmongering. But as it is, and is
>> ever likely to be, there will always be an abundance of routes without
>> facilities, which those who have a dislike of facilities can always use.
>
> It's pretty annoying if you have to go twice the distance to get to work
> in the morning because what was once a perfectly good road has been
> ruined by facilitization.
That would be annoying -- if it happened anywhere other than your
fevered imagination.
>
>> Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who
>> don't ride elsewhere.
>
> The majority of whom? Actual cyclists, or would-be cyclists?
That would (obviously) be "would be" cyclists (in the US), since now,
hardly anyone uses a bicycle for utility purposes. Those who use bikes
for fitness toys can go elsewhere (most drive to their rides, anyway).
>>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_
>>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly
>>> death traps, it would kill cycling overnight.
>>>
>>> There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them
>> Yes, theoretically, but they have been being built for quite some time
>> now -- around the world, and they get used -- usually heavily.
>
> Yes and they've been made compulsory in some places too.
Sure, but most of the users find the whole question silly, since they
wouldn't be riding without the facilities.
Peter Cole
Absolutely, but I'm calling a name for name calling.
> Anyway, Frank is right about bike
> boxes and barrier separated bikeways, both of which I live with daily
> and either hate or think are unnecessary, and I was an original board
> member of the BTA, winner of the Alice B. Toeclips Award and generally
> a dyed in the wool infrastructure advocate. The boxes can be
> downright dangerous after a few seasons.
I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. From
what I've read, the safety jury is still out on boxes, but they're still
overwhelmingly popular.
Bike safety is an issue, but sedentary lifestyle is a much bigger one.
> As for rails-to-trails types of infrastructure, we have the
> Springwater Corridor that many people do use for commuting, including
> one of my co-workers. I hate Springwater because it is mixed use and
> dangerous with people and their dogs, trikes, baby buggies, etc. --
> but the slow-moving upright bar set seems to like it.
But that "set" is really the set of (potential) mainstream cyclists.
That's who the facilities are for. If you don't accommodate average
middle-aged women, you don't have a viable bike plan.
> Frank and I part company on bike lanes. -- Jay Beattie.
Me too, obviously, but the biggest difference is that I don't think that
what's good for Peter Cole is good for everybody.
Lou Holtman
> Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two
>> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general.
>
> What's a "serious" cyclist (rhetorical question).
Everyone riding faster than 20 km/hr.
> Whoever they are,
> they're a distinct minority.
In rush hour bikepaths are a warzone over here in the Netherlands. The
same goes for a nice weekendday. I strongly belief that bikepath here
are for the benifit of the cars. Give them a free go.
> They're free to ride elsewhere.
Not always.
>
>> Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime.
>
> Good luck finding those in a city.
Riding in the city is no fun. If I lived in a US city cycling would not
be my hobby.
Lou
Peter Cole
> Op 7-3-2010 22:06, Peter Cole schreef:
>> Lou Holtman wrote:
>>
>>> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two
>>> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general.
>>
>> What's a "serious" cyclist (rhetorical question).
>
> Everyone riding faster than 20 km/hr.
That would only include half of my household, and we're relatively young
and fit.
>> Whoever they are,
>> they're a distinct minority.
>
> In rush hour bikepaths are a warzone over here in the Netherlands. The
> same goes for a nice weekendday. I strongly belief that bikepath here
> are for the benifit of the cars. Give them a free go.
Streets are a warzone everywhere during rush hour.
>>> Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime.
>>
>> Good luck finding those in a city.
>
> Riding in the city is no fun. If I lived in a US city cycling would not
> be my hobby.
Well then we are having parallel, but unconnected, conversations.
Ben C
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:55:36 -0600, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
That's why I think it's safer to run the red light in that situation,
provided you're not getting in anyone's way.
> Having one set of vehicles turn right across a lane devoted to another
> set of vehicles seems like a bad idea.
>
> ***
>
> Bike lanes are well-meant, but I don't see how they handle
> intersections.
>
> If the bike tries to make a left turn, it has to leave the prescribed
> bike lane and use the dmain traffic lane, right at an intersection,
> the worst possible place.
>
> If the bike tries to go straight through the intersection, the bike
> risks an accident with a car turning right across the bike
> lane--again, right at a traffic light, the worst possible place.
>
> If the bike stays in the bike lane between the intersections, the
> doors opening from parked cars are a constant threat, and so are cars
> that have to cross the bike lane both ways between the main traffic
> lane and the parking strip.
>
> All these problems disappear if the bike just uses the same traffic
> lane as other traffic, but the complaint is that the bikes slow the
> traffic down.
>
> Maybe someone has a photo that shows a bike lane that handles
> intersections well?
Here's one that's better, but the cycle lanes are terribly narrow:
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.212353,0.162992&spn=0.001302,0.002395&t=k&z=19
Crossing this picture from left to right, the rider who wants to go
straight on gets himself into the bike lane in the middle of the road,
which then continues the other side of the roundabout, also in the
middle of the road, between the two lanes of cars.
Basically with this idea you end up having to have one cycle lane per
lane of traffic. So in Union Ave., you'd put another parallel lane
between the right-turn-only lane and the straight-on lane. Then bikes
would filter across the traffic to change between these lanes as it
suited them, perhaps psychologically assisted by sharrows painted in the
middle of the regular traffic lanes.
But then it seems you might as well just not have any lanes at all and
save on a bit of paint. There's no point in road signs that just state
the obvious.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Jay,
I understand your dislike of mixed use:
"I hate Springwater because it is mixed use and dangerous with people
and their dogs, trikes, baby buggies, etc. -- but the slow-moving
upright bar set seems to like it."
But . . .
Lots of drivers hate letting bicycles onto the roads because it's
mixed use and dangerous, though drivers who don't mind going as slowly
as bicycles seem to like it.
Mixing cars and bicycles on the roads is a tough problem.
I sometimes think that a central two-way bike lane would better than
lanes on the side.
A central two-way bike lane wouldn't take up any more room than lanes
on the sides, and the slower bikes would be responsible for turning
out into the faster traffic. They wouldn't be any closer to the
traffic, they'd avoid parked car doors opening, and there'd be no
problem with cars turning right at intersections through the bike
lane.
I wonder if any ever tried such a thing, or if there's just something
obviously wrong with it that I'm missing?
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Lou Holtman
Here is a roundabout in my neighbourhood. Seperate bikepath. I'm comming
from the (north)east and I want to go south east..
<http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&ll=52.212353,0.162992&spn=0.001302,0.002395&t=k&z=19>
Lou
carl...@comcast.net
>> On my daily ride (nowhere near Union Avenue), I used to stop well over
>> to the right at the single traffic light.
>>
>> Cars would drive up to the light, stop, and turn right.
>>
>> After two of them hit me with their mirrors as they turned right, I
>> began to stop in the middle of the lane.
>
>That's why I think it's safer to run the red light in that situation,
>provided you're not getting in anyone's way.
Dear Ben,
Sorry, maybe I didn't make things clear.
I ride up on a quiet two-lane road to a traffic light at a 5-lane
beltway.
The light is red, but lots of traffic is going through both ways at 45
mph. There's no way to run this red light.
I used to stop on the right-hand side of the road to wait for the
green light. It can take up to two minutes.
Cars would pull up next to me, stop for the red light, wait for a gap
in traffic, and then turn right on red, which is legal here.
A few of them turned so sharply that they hit me with their mirrors as
they pulled out from waiting at the light.
Just plain bad driving. They were so busy looking for traffic coming
from their left that they forgot the bicycle on their right. (They
even hit the curbs.)
So now I hog--
Er, so now I take the whole damn lane at the light and let them sit
behind me.
Sometimes they squeeze through on my right to turn right through the
red light, which is fine with me.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Lou Holtman
Oops that went wrong. Here is the correct link (I think):
<http://maps.google.nl/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.356705,6.057678&spn=0.002388,0.00544&t=k&z=18>
Lou
Ben C
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2010-03-07, Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Ben C wrote:
>> [...]
>>> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe
>>> there'd be a justification for such fearmongering. But as it is, and is
>>> ever likely to be, there will always be an abundance of routes without
>>> facilities, which those who have a dislike of facilities can always use.
>>
>> It's pretty annoying if you have to go twice the distance to get to work
>> in the morning because what was once a perfectly good road has been
>> ruined by facilitization.
>
> That would be annoying -- if it happened anywhere other than your
> fevered imagination.
_My_ fevered imagination? You were the one glibly suggesting that people
who don't like the facilities can just take a different route.
>>> Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who
>>> don't ride elsewhere.
>>
>> The majority of whom? Actual cyclists, or would-be cyclists?
>
> That would (obviously) be "would be" cyclists (in the US), since now,
> hardly anyone uses a bicycle for utility purposes. Those who use bikes
> for fitness toys can go elsewhere (most drive to their rides, anyway).
Right, so by "those who use bikes for fitness toys", you mean actual
cyclists? And you don't claim that the majority of these actual cyclists
want facilities?
Peter Cole
I'm not familiar with anything like that. Around here (Boston), we have
a "rail trail", which doesn't have any sharp curves, gratuitous or
otherwise. It also doesn't have any significant grades. I rode it once
and found it boring.
The other trail follows the river. That's not very efficient, but
pleasant. I use it a lot when I'm not in a hurry. I often prefer to mix
pleasure and utility when cycling, something I almost never do with a car.
> Also, bicycle crossings of major multi-lane roads now have detector
> loops rather than a large area push button for bicyclists, in the
> direction of travel... so many riders cross the detector and ride to
> the pedestrian "micro button" to get the light to change.
Many of the detectors around here don't reliably detect bicycles.
> Unfortunately the pedestrian button turns on the green traffic light
> AND the white pedestrian walk sign... for one minute while the bicycle
> detector loop turns on only the green light for 30 seconds. Of course
> that doesn't occur often because most bicyclists don't trust the
> detector and press the pedestrian button.
Same here, usually the distrust is well deserved.
Ben C
> Lots of drivers hate letting bicycles onto the roads because it's
> mixed use and dangerous, though drivers who don't mind going as slowly
> as bicycles seem to like it.
>
> Mixing cars and bicycles on the roads is a tough problem.
My favourite kind of facility is where you get a bridleway or lane or
something, put a bit of tarmac on it, and make a whole bicycles-only
road, no cars in sight.
> I sometimes think that a central two-way bike lane would better than
> lanes on the side.
>
> A central two-way bike lane wouldn't take up any more room than lanes
> on the sides, and the slower bikes would be responsible for turning
> out into the faster traffic. They wouldn't be any closer to the
> traffic, they'd avoid parked car doors opening, and there'd be no
> problem with cars turning right at intersections through the bike
> lane.
No, but left-turning cars would have to cross both bike lanes. Still,
the bikes would be in quite a visible position.
> I wonder if any ever tried such a thing, or if there's just something
> obviously wrong with it that I'm missing?
One problem is the bicycle would have to cross a lane of traffic for
left and right turns. But then as it is, you have to cross two lanes for
one of them, and none for the other, so it isn't really any worse.
I think it sounds like a very good idea.
Peter Cole
>>> It's pretty annoying if you have to go twice the distance to get to work
>>> in the morning because what was once a perfectly good road has been
>>> ruined by facilitization.
>> That would be annoying -- if it happened anywhere other than your
>> fevered imagination.
>
> _My_ fevered imagination? You were the one glibly suggesting that people
> who don't like the facilities can just take a different route.
Yes, and I find it not credible that you would have to double your
distance to use a road without a bike lane.
>>>> Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who
>>>> don't ride elsewhere.
>>> The majority of whom? Actual cyclists, or would-be cyclists?
>> That would (obviously) be "would be" cyclists (in the US), since now,
>> hardly anyone uses a bicycle for utility purposes. Those who use bikes
>> for fitness toys can go elsewhere (most drive to their rides, anyway).
>
> Right, so by "those who use bikes for fitness toys", you mean actual
> cyclists?
I meant what I said. Those who you categorize as "actual cyclists" are
very much in the minority in those places where utility cycling has a
significant modal share.
> And you don't claim that the majority of these actual cyclists
> want facilities?
I don't know or really care very much. Since these cyclists are a
minority, or would be in a society that had a high level of cycling,
their wishes aren't my primary concern. As I said, a plan that doesn't
get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan.
Ben C
>>
>> Here is a roundabout in my neighbourhood. Seperate bikepath. I'm comming
>> from the (north)east and I want to go south east..
>>
> Oops that went wrong. Here is the correct link (I think):
>
><http://maps.google.nl/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.356705,6.057678&spn=0.002388,0.00544&t=k&z=18>
So do you turn left, cross one car-road, go down the bikepath, over that
canal, and then feed out into the SE road?
Or do you have to go all the way round the roundabout, so crossing two
car roads?
Ben C
>
>>> On my daily ride (nowhere near Union Avenue), I used to stop well over
>>> to the right at the single traffic light.
>>>
>>> Cars would drive up to the light, stop, and turn right.
>>>
>>> After two of them hit me with their mirrors as they turned right, I
>>> began to stop in the middle of the lane.
>>
>>That's why I think it's safer to run the red light in that situation,
>>provided you're not getting in anyone's way.
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Sorry, maybe I didn't make things clear.
>
> I ride up on a quiet two-lane road to a traffic light at a 5-lane
> beltway.
>
> The light is red, but lots of traffic is going through both ways at 45
> mph. There's no way to run this red light.
OK, that's the part I missed. My point is that waiting on the right
(left here) in a line of traffic is always hazardous because people do
turn across you and often cut the inside of the corner. If you can't run
the light, then what you're doing is the best thing-- get in the middle
of the lane. I also would try to get as far forward as possible, and in
this country, we often have "advanced stop lines" for bicycles to
encourage that.
We don't have cars turning left on red, so that complication doesn't
exist.
Peter Cole
> On 2010-03-07, carl...@comcast.net <carl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> Lots of drivers hate letting bicycles onto the roads because it's
>> mixed use and dangerous, though drivers who don't mind going as slowly
>> as bicycles seem to like it.
>>
>> Mixing cars and bicycles on the roads is a tough problem.
>
> My favourite kind of facility is where you get a bridleway or lane or
> something, put a bit of tarmac on it, and make a whole bicycles-only
> road, no cars in sight.
In very dense locales it may be feasible to just exclude cars from
certain streets, in some cases linking them to form a continuous
corridor. Much of the benefit can be equally achieved simply by
drastically lowering motor vehicle speeds on such roads and giving other
traffic extreme right of way.
In less dense areas, such cycle tracks have some utility, but usually
only if they link popular destinations. It's tough to find right of ways
that qualify, and then, as pointed out, there's usually the requirement
to share with a variety of others.
>> I sometimes think that a central two-way bike lane would better than
>> lanes on the side.
>>
>> A central two-way bike lane wouldn't take up any more room than lanes
>> on the sides, and the slower bikes would be responsible for turning
>> out into the faster traffic. They wouldn't be any closer to the
>> traffic, they'd avoid parked car doors opening, and there'd be no
>> problem with cars turning right at intersections through the bike
>> lane.
>
> No, but left-turning cars would have to cross both bike lanes. Still,
> the bikes would be in quite a visible position.
>
>> I wonder if any ever tried such a thing, or if there's just something
>> obviously wrong with it that I'm missing?
>
> One problem is the bicycle would have to cross a lane of traffic for
> left and right turns. But then as it is, you have to cross two lanes for
> one of them, and none for the other, so it isn't really any worse.
>
> I think it sounds like a very good idea.
John Allen describes what he sees as the advantages and disadvantages of
center of the street lanes:
http://www.bikexprt.com/bikepol/facil/lanes/midstreet.htm
Another:
http://www.streetfilms.org/sands-street-gets-a-sassy-center-median-cycletrack/
damyth
> >>>> Tom Sherman _ wrote:
> >>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.massbike.org/2010/02/26/massbike-believes-in-bicycle-infra...
> >>>>>> Well, it's a step.
> >>>>> motorist is at fault for maiming or killing a cyclist, but is not
> >>>>> charged with a serious offense?
> >>>> I like my pound of flesh as much as the next guy, but I'd still rather
> >>>> work on prevention. Calming and reduction of auto traffic in thickly
> >>>> settled areas gets my vote.
> >>> I like wide, well paved roads. All this bicycle infrastructure often
> >>> makes things worse, with the exception of bike lanes ON the roadway.
> >>> Dedicated off-road facilities turn in to pedestrain trails. Bicycle
> >>> boulevards often have spurious hard-scape devices that turn in to
> >>> hazards. Bicycle shelters -- bike lanes between the curb and parked
> >>> cars -- are plain dangerous. Applied boxes and three-point lines and
> >>> what have you get slippery after the second snow and a little
> >>> scraping.
> >>> All this worry about riders "feeling comfortable" or "less stressed"
> >>> is psychotic -- and it assumes there are hundreds and millions of
> >>> people who really want to ride except for being afraid (afraid in a
> >>> way that a green bike box will fix). That's BS. The people who tell
> >>> me that they would ride if it were only more safe are typically
> >>> fatties with no history of riding, even at beach resorts. We should
> >>> just make the roads wider, fix them and put on a stripe. Everybody
> >>> wins. -- Jay Beattie.
> >> I like wide roads, too. Problem is, around here (Boston) there isn't
> >> any more room. What typically has happened is that more car lanes have
> >> been added to the same road width, making life more difficult for
> >> cyclists. I'd like to get some back. If that necessitates bike lanes,
> >> I'm for it.
>
> >> Portland has managed to double cycling in the last decade. It seems
> >> they're doing something right, even if they're doing it wrong.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Demographics, increased population and high gas prices and a lot of
> > press.
>
> Cycling has increased over 100% since 2000, population more like 5%. Gas
> prices were low through much of the decade, while cycling in Portland
> grew steadily (compare cycling growth to gas prices 2000-2006, you won't
> see much correlation).
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "demographics" -- bunch of Danes moved in?
> Income? Portland family median seems about the same, or a little lower
> than the national average. Age? Same as income. Portland is pretty white
> -- is that it?
>
> > I'm not sure how much of it is infrastructure changes -- some
> > probably,
>
> Well, that is the question, isn't it?
>
> > but not enough to justify the $600 million price tag for our
> > new 2030 Bicycle Plan.
>
> I thought you didn't know.
>
> Where did you get that "price tag"? The latest estimates I've seen are
> $223M for an "80% plan" and $335M for a "world class" plan.
>
> Even at $600M, I'd point out that Boston, a similarly sized city, just
> spent over 25x that amount on a single road construction project.
>
> Portland is aiming for a 25% share of total trips by bike. Quoted
> studies in Denmark claim a $1/mile cycled health care cost benefit and a
> 200% rate of return (reduced health costs) on cycling infrastructure.
>
> It's been interesting that in this year of intense debate over what to
> do about the health care *cost* crisis in the US, very little attention
> has been paid to the obvious lifestyle issues. The projected costs of
> diabetes alone are predicted to break the bank. As a part of the boomer
> bulge that's said to represent a huge unfunded (unfundable?) medical
> liability, I feel that we're running out of time -- it's our lifestyle
> that's not economically sustainable, and obesity will get us before
> climate change does. Just a glance will reveal why it's not an equally
> hot topic for Big Al Gore.
>
> People have to be moved around the city one way or another. Money spent
> on one facility is money that doesn't have to be spent on another. On a
> per-capita basis, infrastructure costs for cycling facilities are
> relative peanuts compared to private car and/or mass transit. Bikes
> won't do the majority of people moving, even in a cycling utopia, but
> they're transportational low hanging fruit and should be picked first.
> To do otherwise is just dumb. To quibble over these relatively modest
> costs is just dumb.
>
> > I know a lot of this planning stuff is to stake
>
> > out federal funds made available for bicycle and pedestrian
> > infrastructure and not for filling pot holes, so I'm not that shocked
> > by the plan or the price tag. But if those projects are funded by
> > increased taxes (property, business, income, sales), I'm going to
> > scream bloody murder. I'm not going to pay for fussy bicylcle
> > infrastructure when we need so much road repair around here. That
> > will piss off motorists and cause a backlash.-- Jay Beattie.
>
> Even the large number you cite only amounts to $50/capita/year. Whether
> that comes from the Feds, the state or local revenue sources makes
> little difference. It's a pittance compared to the existing subsidies
> (from all those sources) for the alternatives. Besides the compelling
> health cost argument, a dollar spent on cycling saves more than a dollar
> elsewhere. Of course, this is only true if the facilities get used. The
> "Field of Dreams" argument ("build it and they will come") is what is
> usually proffered. That argument requires a bit of faith, but what major
> public works project doesn't? I'm sure that if the predicted cycling
> numbers don't track projections that the budget will get reevaluated
> over the 20 year projected term.
>
> Lipitor and gym memberships aren't going to do it. Americans have to get
> off their fat butts and get the blood pumping through their clogged and
> brittle arteries. Obesity and related diseases is the health care crisis
> of the century. The benefits of transportational cycling to health and
> overall urban quality of life are not hypothetical. Neither is the
> impact of infrastructure investment on the growth of cycling trip share.
> There are ample examples. Portland is, quite sensibly, following the
> lead of other, more progressive, communities. I hope Boston catches up.
>
> Coincidentally, the major paper here in Boston had an article on obesity
> rates by community today. Not surprisingly, many urban communities had
> significantly lower rates than their outer suburban counterparts.
> Experts felt the bulk of the difference was determined by the much
> greater prevalence of walking and cycling over driving in the more
> densely populated districts. This is not rocket science. The best way to
> reduce the cost of medical care is to lower the need for it in the first
> place. I'd rather be taxed for bike infrastructure than taxed for
> medications and treatments for fat-related illness -- don't kid
> yourself, that's the choice.
I've biked and lived in both cities that has been mentioned. Boston,
MA and Portland, OR. In addition, I grew up in NYC, and did a few
stints as a (full time) bike messenger there for a few summers.
Quite frankly I don't know where the statistics for bike ridership in
Portland come from. I think somebody in charge there is cooking the
books. I've never been more scared biking anywhere else in the US as
I was in Portland. Why? Because the roads in Portland were CRAP, and
most roads only had one lane each way, graced by ditches on both sides
(no sidewalks either). Without putting to fine a point on it, it was
typical redneck rural. And even though there were plenty of separate
bike facilities, they didn't go everywhere that the roads did, and
they also had pedestrians. In short, I felt the bike facilities where
being ghettoized. My neighbor's daughter was attending community
college less than 2 miles away, and I didn't feel safe biking there,
never mind my neighbor's daughter.
FWIW, in NYC they've taken away car lanes and converted them into bike
lanes. While I'm not so sure this method would be quite as practical
in Boston because it historically didn't have as much urban planning
as NYC, there is no doubt in my mind that's the solution that
ultimately makes the most sense if bikes are to become a practical
form of transportation.
Jay Beattie
Many reasons -- if it is separated from traffic by barriers, that
means that it is a bicycle equivalent of a Habitrail -- you can only
get on or get off at designated points. It also means that it is hard
to clean; snow is never removed; it can't be cleaned by ordinary
street sweepers and repaving is very difficult. Any "cattle chute"
approach to bike lanes has these difficulties. One problem for me is
passing other cyclists. Everyone gets slowed down.
I ride a chute across the 205 bridge that is very interesting --
highway traffic on both sides. http://www.flickr.com/photos/60961560@N00/3660962141/
This is one of the few places where the chute works. I hate this one
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28031838@N03/4118176011/ Note all the
people wandering in to the lane either from the curb or out of parked
cars. This is in front of a University populated by distracted kids.
The car with the brake lights on is parking in the strip that creates
the "shelter" (viz. trap) for bicyclists. Another shot
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28031838@N03/4118176011/ At least the
are can be cleaned when there are no cars parked in the strip.
Mixing bikes with walkers is worse than mixing bikes with cars because
cars and bikes are all vehicles and subject to clearly defined rules.
Walkers do what they do -- so do dogs on 30 foot leashes, kids on
trikes, guys on roller skis, skateboarders, etc. I was practically
wiped out by some kid on a skateboard (little did I know that some
group of thugs had condemned a road for impromptu skateboard races)
and by people stepping off curbs in to traffic. Why do pedestrians
always look the other way -- the way traffic is not coming. It is
totally amazing. -- Jay Beattie.
AMuzi
> On Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:55:36 -0600, Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-03-07, Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> They're just following the lead of societies in Europe, like Denmark and
>>>> The Netherlands. Not very controversial. You're essentially using the
>>>> "socialized bicycling" argument. That's swayed opinion for 40 years or
>>>> more, but fortunately the tide is turning. Don't fear, you won't have to
>>>> use facilities if you don't want, I'm sure there'll remain plenty of
>>>> unimproved roads, especially in your (red) neck of the woods.
>>> Nice finish with the insult to my area, Peter. A lot of people would
>>> consider that lowbrow.
>>>
>>> following Europe's lead with as much intelligence as sheep following a
>>> goat. In particular, they're ignoring the findings that many European
>>> facilities have proven to be more dangerous than roads,
>> Even in NL I've heard. The problem is apparently you get hit at the
>> intersections between the bike lanes and roads.
>>
>> fiercely oppose making them compulsory. If they're any good, they don't
>> need to be compulsory, because people will use them anyway.
>>
>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly
>> death traps, it would kill cycling overnight.
>>
>> There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them
>> decides to make them compulsory.
>
> Dear Ben,
>
> Years ago, the well-meaning Pueblo city traffic department painted
> bike lanes down Union Avenue:
> http://i10.tinypic.com/4ti4j92.jpg
>
> Every block follows the same weird pattern in that photo.
>
> For most of the block, a bike lane runs between the traffic lane and
> the parking strip.
>
> At the end of the block, a sign announces that the bike lane simply
> ends about fifty feet before the intersection.
>
> Another sign announces that a mandatory right-hand turn lane takes the
> place of the bike lane. (The parking strip vanishes, too.)
>
> Damned if I know what a bike is supposed to do.
>
> Maybe the bikes are supposed to merge with the cars turning right
> every block at the traffic light?
>
> Maybe the bikes are supposed to stop before the car lane takes over,
> get off the road between the parked cars and onto the sidewalk, push
> across the intersection in the pedestrian crosswalk, and then get back
> on to pedal another block in the bike lane that reappears?
>
> Maybe the bikes are supposed to swerve left into the main traffic lane
> at every intersection, ride through the light, and then swerve back to
> the right when the bike lane reappears?
>
> The bicyclist in the photo shows the other problem. The bike obviously
> has to go out into the traffic lane to turn left, while drivers honk
> and shout at him to get back in the bike lane (which has vanished).
>
> ***
>
> to the right at the single traffic light.
>
> Cars would drive up to the light, stop, and turn right.
>
> After two of them hit me with their mirrors as they turned right, I
> began to stop in the middle of the lane.
>
> set of vehicles seems like a bad idea.
>
> ***
>
> Bike lanes are well-meant, but I don't see how they handle
> intersections.
>
> If the bike tries to make a left turn, it has to leave the prescribed
> bike lane and use the dmain traffic lane, right at an intersection,
> the worst possible place.
>
> If the bike tries to go straight through the intersection, the bike
> risks an accident with a car turning right across the bike
> lane--again, right at a traffic light, the worst possible place.
>
> If the bike stays in the bike lane between the intersections, the
> doors opening from parked cars are a constant threat, and so are cars
> that have to cross the bike lane both ways between the main traffic
> lane and the parking strip.
>
> All these problems disappear if the bike just uses the same traffic
> lane as other traffic, but the complaint is that the bikes slow the
> traffic down.
>
> Maybe someone has a photo that shows a bike lane that handles
> intersections well?
>
>
> Carl Fogel
If there is one, I haven't seen it.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Jay Beattie
The deal is "Portland" is a lot of real estate. There are portions of
the city in east and west county that are a wreck, and then there are
places that are a pleasure to ride. My son's route to his middle
school was scary narrow, not to mention he had a pretty good 8%
climb. It's all bike lane to highschool, although it is close enough
to walk. This is a portion of my commute: http://www.flickr.com/photos/major_clanger/2466546512
-- I don't do the bit through Hillsdale. Note when he hits that
broken concrete -- when I go over the hills home, that is what I
descend down. It's enough to throw you OTB. Check this out --
amazing what you will find on YouTube. He's going through my cemetary
at 2:43 -- my most common way home. At 1:25, look at the traffic over
the Hawthorne Bridge -- not staged. The film makes no sense because
he's going up and down the cemetary hill. Maybe he just wants to put
in some miles. -- Jay Beattie.
Jay Beattie
> On Mar 7, 3:27 pm, damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> The deal is "Portland" is a lot of real estate. There are portions of
> the city in east and west county that are a wreck, and then there are
> places that are a pleasure to ride. My son's route to his middle
> school was scary narrow, not to mention he had a pretty good 8%
> climb. It's all bike lane to highschool, although it is close enough
> to walk. This is a portion of my commute:http://www.flickr.com/photos/major_clanger/2466546512
> -- I don't do the bit through Hillsdale. Note when he hits that
> broken concrete -- when I go over the hills home, that is what I
> descend down. It's enough to throw you OTB. Check this out --
> amazing what you will find on YouTube. He's going through my cemetary
> at 2:43 -- my most common way home. At 1:25, look at the traffic over
> the Hawthorne Bridge -- not staged. The film makes no sense because
> he's going up and down the cemetary hill. ...
Oops. I forgot my link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI7T2iuGjjc --
Jay Beattie.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Chalo
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> > How about holding a demonstration outside the DA's office every time a
> > motorist is at fault for maiming or killing a cyclist, but is not
> > charged with a serious offense?
>
> I like my pound of flesh as much as the next guy, but I'd still rather
> work on prevention. Calming and reduction of auto traffic in thickly
> settled areas gets my vote.
Of the two, do you think calming and reduction of gun ownership, or
zealous enforcement of gun crimes, has had a more pronounced effect on
gun violence?
I'm all for giving people incentives to do the right thing, but
American motorists are a shining example of callous disregard for the
welfare of others. Treating their crimes at least as harshly as if
they had been committed with some other kind of weapon would probably
be the single most effective thing we could do to improve road
safety.
Chalo
AMuzi
It's just a block over.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Lou,
Did you accidentally paste Ben's link instead of the one to your
roundabout?
I'm bitter because Ben seems to have better resolution than I do:
http://tinyurl.com/yd7279s
I come from the left and stop and wait at the traffic light where the
car is at the hatch-marked intersection.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
AMuzi
Wow, nice jersey.
(PeteCresswell)
>My favourite kind of facility is where you get a bridleway or lane or
>something, put a bit of tarmac on it, and make a whole bicycles-only
>road, no cars in sight.
Lotta that around where my in-laws live in Germany.
To me, it's cyclist's heaven.
--
PeteCresswell
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Wow, nice jersey.
>
I thought you preferred the Holstein-Friesian?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> As for rails-to-trails types of infrastructure, we have the
> Springwater Corridor that many people do use for commuting, including
> one of my co-workers. I hate Springwater because it is mixed use and
> dangerous with people and their dogs, trikes, baby buggies, etc. --
How are trikes dangerous to other users?
Tom Sherman °_°
> Lou Holtman wrote:
>
>> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two
>> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general.
>
> What's a "serious" cyclist (rhetorical question). Whoever they are,
> they're a distinct minority. They're free to ride elsewhere.
>
>> Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime.
>
> Good luck finding those in a city.
What cyclist lives in a big city by choice?
AMuzi
>> [...]
>> Wow, nice jersey.
Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
> I thought you preferred the Holstein-Friesian?
shhhhh. we call her a Jersey. She doesn't know that
Holsteins are cute while Jerseys are, uh, pulchritudinally
challenged.
AMuzi
Choking hazard.
Mostly that's what you want to do to the parent.
AMuzi
moi
Tom Sherman °_°
> Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two
>>>> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general.
>>>
>>> What's a "serious" cyclist (rhetorical question). Whoever they are,
>>> they're a distinct minority. They're free to ride elsewhere.
>>>
>>>> Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime.
>>>
>>> Good luck finding those in a city.
>>
>> What cyclist lives in a big city by choice?
>>
>
>
> moi
>
When did Madison become a big city?
Tom Sherman °_°
> Tom Sherman �_� wrote:
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> As for rails-to-trails types of infrastructure, we have the
>>> Springwater Corridor that many people do use for commuting, including
>>> one of my co-workers. I hate Springwater because it is mixed use and
>>> dangerous with people and their dogs, trikes, baby buggies, etc. --
>>> but the slow-moving upright bar set seems to like it.[...]
>>
>> How are trikes dangerous to other users?
>>
>
> Choking hazard.
>
> Mostly that's what you want to do to the parent.
>
vehicle (HPV) ridden (mostly) by adults, while "tricycle" is used for a
small HPV ridden by annoying munchkins.
damyth
> >> Ben C wrote:
> > [...]
> >> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe
> >> there'd be a justification for such fearmongering. But as it is, and is
> >> ever likely to be, there will always be an abundance of routes without
> >> facilities, which those who have a dislike of facilities can always use.
>
> > It's pretty annoying if you have to go twice the distance to get to work
> > in the morning because what was once a perfectly good road has been
> > ruined by facilitization.
>
> That would be annoying -- if it happened anywhere other than your
> fevered imagination.
>
>
>
> >> don't ride elsewhere.
>
> > The majority of whom? Actual cyclists, or would-be cyclists?
>
> That would (obviously) be "would be" cyclists (in the US), since now,
> hardly anyone uses a bicycle for utility purposes. Those who use bikes
> for fitness toys can go elsewhere (most drive to their rides, anyway).
>
facilities would encourage "utilitarian" or even recreational bike
riding? While this assertion might be "obvious" to you it sure is not
what I've observed.
I can tell you why virtually no bicyclists around here ride separated
bike paths at all:
1. They don't go everywhere where roads go
2. They aren't maintained as regularly as roads (swept or repaved)
3. They have blind corners due to geometry & shrubbery
4. They've been "appropriated" for every use other than bicycling
5. There are no ESTABLISHED norms of behavior for separate bike paths
such as right of way, passing, etc. (as there are for roads)
Another reason most bicyclists here prefer riding roads is we have
nice wide roads; in a sense, the roads are more utilitarian (and
nicer) than separate bike paths.
Lest you think I'm a "competitive" rider, these days I'm not
physically capable of riding over 15mph if I tried. Riding a bike on
a bike path here would be the equivalent of hot-dogging my dune buggy
on a schoolyard playground full of kids. I couldn't cause more terror
if I tried.
> >>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_
> >>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly
> >>> death traps, it would kill cycling overnight.
>
> >>> There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them
> >> Yes, theoretically, but they have been being built for quite some time
> >> now -- around the world, and they get used -- usually heavily.
>
> > Yes and they've been made compulsory in some places too.
>
> Sure, but most of the users find the whole question silly, since they
> wouldn't be riding without the facilities.
Prove it.
damyth
Hey Jay,
I don't mean to be argumentative but you do realize "greater Portland"
doesn't just consist of Hillsdale/Terwilliger Blvd?
Anyone thinking that video is somehow representative of biking all
across Portland is going to be in for a rude surprise. I don't deny
that route is very nice but it's virtually the ONLY route in Portland!
I forgot to add earlier that I barely feel safe driving in Portland,
never mind riding. It's the only town where I've been rear ended
twice (accident-free in all other towns). And what's the deal with
the dualie SUVs per capita?
Besides, aside from the summer, you can count the number of sunny days
per year in Portland on the fingers of one hand. :)
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> I wouldn't boil the whole debate down to a single type of facility. From
> what I've read, the safety jury is still out on boxes, but they're still
> overwhelmingly popular.
First, the jury is still out for those people who are so enamored of
bike boxes that they refuse to analyze the traffic movements. Those
of us who have considered how vehicles move at intersections seem to
be pretty uniformly skeptical. Those who have begun to measure their
effects are struggling to hide their failure. And BTW, I didn't start
out against bike boxes; I started out unsure, trying to understand how
they would help. After much reading and thinking, I decided they
would not.
And they are "overwhelmingly popular" for two reasons: A) There is a
large group of fuzzy thinkers who believe there is no such thing as a
bad bike facility; and B) bike boxes have been rabidly promoted as
being wonderful. Portland's "experimental" boxes were never treated
as an unbiased experiment. The "Get behind the bike box!" flyers in
bike shops were (and probably still are) pure sales pitch.
> Bike safety is an issue, but sedentary lifestyle is a much bigger one.
So it's considered moral to lure people into activity by using false
promises of greater safety, even if analysis and data show the
opposite?
And isn't it counterproductive to further discourage people who don't
have these oddball facilities, by reinforcing the false message that
cycling is dangerous without them?
Why not just tell the truth - that cycling is extremely safe, that
it's easy to do it well, and that you rarely need special stripes or
special facilities? Wouldn't that be more cost effective and more
honest?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
>
> Er, so now I take the whole damn lane at the light and let them sit
> behind me.
>
> Sometimes they squeeze through on my right to turn right through the
> red light, which is fine with me.
That's what I generally do in that situation. If necessary, when I
see their right turn signal is on, I'll wave them by on my right.
They're always politely grateful for that.
If I can't do that, because of too-narrow width or other reasons, I
figure it's no different than if I were in a car in front of them.
They can just be patient.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> Jobst Brandt wrote:
> > Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >>>> This must all be part of some ISTEA-like money grab. Everyone is
> >>>> coming up with expensive and byzantine bicycle plans.
>
> >>> lanes! Bike parking! Intermodal facilities! What a world!
>
> >> As usual, all emotion and no analysis.
>
> >> Safe Routes to School has its good points. Kids should have
> >> sidewalks, and neighborhood access to schools (as alternatives to
> >> only four-lane access) makes sense. Nobody here has ever argued
> >> against bike parking. Intermodality is great, including bike racks
> >> on buses and bike space in trains.
>
> >> But that's hardly the thrust of the "trendiest" advocates. Their
> >> newest darlings are the bike box and the barrier-separated bikeway -
> >> both of which are obviously problematic, if you've got any capacity
> >> for motion analysis or any experience riding them. And of course,
> >> the belief in the necessity of, and benefits of, bike lanes is
> >> totally religious. As is the faith that completely separated bike
> >> trails will one day take us everywhere we want to go.
>
>
> >> If the money spent on one mile of our recreational rail-trail
> >> (falsely claimed to be "transportational") were spent on traffic
> >> light sensors, every light in my metro area would detect every
> >> bicycle. The money that paid for the next mile of path would have
> >> put good bike parking at every public building. The third mile of
> >> path would pay for racks on every bus. The fourth mile would have
> >> paid for educational billboards and public service announcements so
> >> motorists would begin to learn respect for our rights. And that
> >> path goes on for many miles.
>
> >> bad projects, at the pleading of starry-eyed dreamers.
>
> > of bicycling by making new bicycle paths with series of Ess curves to
> > help riders play with their bicycles that are only entertainment
> > anyway. They have done this where formerly there were straight
> > bicycle paths, the kind riders like to use.
>
> I'm not familiar with anything like that. Around here (Boston), we have
> a "rail trail", which doesn't have any sharp curves, gratuitous or
> otherwise. It also doesn't have any significant grades. I rode it once
> and found it boring.
>
> The other trail follows the river. That's not very efficient, but
> pleasant. I use it a lot when I'm not in a hurry. I often prefer to mix
> pleasure and utility when cycling, something I almost never do with a car.
>
> > Also, bicycle crossings of major multi-lane roads now have detector
> > loops rather than a large area push button for bicyclists, in the
> > direction of travel... so many riders cross the detector and ride to
> > the pedestrian "micro button" to get the light to change.
>
> Many of the detectors around here don't reliably detect bicycles.
>
> > Unfortunately the pedestrian button turns on the green traffic light
> > AND the white pedestrian walk sign... for one minute while the bicycle
> > detector loop turns on only the green light for 30 seconds. Of course
> > that doesn't occur often because most bicyclists don't trust the
> > detector and press the pedestrian button.
>
> Same here, usually the distrust is well deserved.
Around here, even the frickin' pedestian butoons don't work.
Frank Krygowski
> As I said, a plan that doesn't
> get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan.
If you want to get the average middle-aged American woman on a bike, I
think you'll need to do _all_ the things they do in northern Europe.
First, raise the price of gas to their level. That would require a
gas tax immense by American standards.
Second, make attaining a driver's license as difficult and costly as
it is over there.
Third, increase the taxes on car purchases to a level equal to
theirs. Ignore any political repercussions.
Fourth (and maybe most important) re-design American cities so they
are as dense and as commercially healthy as those European cities.
That means doing away with most of American suburban sprawl, and
getting those American housewives to enjoy living in inner-city
housing.
That will do most of the job. After that, you can start with big
promotional efforts, telling those housewives how beneficial and
stylish and responsible it is to ride a bike.
As I understand, all those things happened in places like Copenhagen.
On top of that, they had a long history of biking even before those
factors came into being, so you may want to go back and change
American history.
Oh, and at some point, you may want to change the contours of the land
to mimic those cities where cycling is really popular. I recall
reading that flatness correlated particularly well with cycling modal
share.
If you do all those things, you probably won't even need bike lanes.
In fact, sharrows would probably work just fine.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
FWIW, I do ~200-300 miles a week in absoute redneck rural - about
60-75 of that in lardass city.
Right now I don't know what to say about it though. Read my archives
here, I guess.
Dan O
> Peter Cole wrote:
> > Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> >> Almost all serious cyclists here (NL) hate separated bikepaths, two
> >> way bikepaths. Well bikepaths in general.
>
> > What's a "serious" cyclist (rhetorical question). Whoever they are,
> > they're a distinct minority. They're free to ride elsewhere.
>
> >> Lou, give me a wide quiet road anytime.
>
> > Good luck finding those in a city.
>
> It's just a block over.
>
But usually with lots of stop sign to blow.
Lou Holtman
> On 2010-03-07, Lou Holtman <lhollaatditmaar...@planet.nl> wrote:
>
> > Op 7-3-2010 23:24, Lou Holtman schreef:
> [...]
>
> >> Here is a roundabout in my neighbourhood. Seperate bikepath. I'm comming
> >> from the (north)east and I want to go south east..
>
> > Oops that went wrong. Here is the correct link (I think):
>
> ><http://maps.google.nl/?ie=UTF8&ll=51.356705,6.057678&spn=0.002388,0.0...>
>
> So do you turn left, cross one car-road, go down the bikepath, over that
> canal, and then feed out into the SE road?
>
> Or do you have to go all the way round the roundabout, so crossing two
> car roads?
Yep, the last. Crazy. 1,2,3,4,5,6 almost 90 degree turns and crossing
for lanes for the cyclist to go left. We get more and more of those
little roundabouts. They are for slowing down car traffic, but in
reality it is more dangerous for cyclists.
Lou
Lou
Ben C
It is. The peace and quiet and lack of stress of having no cars around
has to be experienced to be believed.
They have them in NL too. The only downside is you do sometimes have to
share the road with a few sheep and of course pesky slow middle-aged
women clanking around on utility bikes.
Ben C
In that picture it looks like there is no bike path on the left hand
side of the road going SE. So if you went the short way, then you would
have to cross that road. So maybe that's why they make you go the long
way round.
But certainly it's a pain, because you have to stop and wait for the
cars twice. If you just ride on the roundabout like a car, you feed on
in the normal way and can just get straight off.
When I ride in NL it's on slow touring holidays so I don't mind all this
stuff, but sometimes you meet large groups of people on weekend rides
all crammed onto the bike path, probably just trying to connect to a
smaller road with no bike path, which must be quite disruptive. When I
go for a ride here in UK on my fitness toy, I can go out of the house
and ride 80km pretty much flat-out the whole way.
Peter Cole
It's just too hard to prove negligence or malfeasance.
Peter Cole
Me.
Peter Cole
> On Mar 7, 1:37 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Ben C wrote:
>>> On 2010-03-07, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Ben C wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> I don't see the big deal. If every road was "facilitized", then maybe
>>>> there'd be a justification for such fearmongering. But as it is, and is
>>>> ever likely to be, there will always be an abundance of routes without
>>>> facilities, which those who have a dislike of facilities can always use.
>>> It's pretty annoying if you have to go twice the distance to get to work
>>> in the morning because what was once a perfectly good road has been
>>> ruined by facilitization.
>> That would be annoying -- if it happened anywhere other than your
>> fevered imagination.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Let those who want them (the majority, BTW) have them, and those who
>>>> don't ride elsewhere.
>>> The majority of whom? Actual cyclists, or would-be cyclists?
>> That would (obviously) be "would be" cyclists (in the US), since now,
>> hardly anyone uses a bicycle for utility purposes. Those who use bikes
>> for fitness toys can go elsewhere (most drive to their rides, anyway).
>>
> This is rich. You have any evidence to back up the claim that
> facilities would encourage "utilitarian" or even recreational bike
> riding? While this assertion might be "obvious" to you it sure is not
> what I've observed.
>
> separated bike paths at all:
> 1. They don't go everywhere where roads go
> 2. They aren't maintained as regularly as roads (swept or repaved)
> 3. They have blind corners due to geometry & shrubbery
> 4. They've been "appropriated" for every use other than bicycling
> 5. There are no ESTABLISHED norms of behavior for separate bike paths
> such as right of way, passing, etc. (as there are for roads)
>
> Another reason most bicyclists here prefer riding roads is we have
> nice wide roads; in a sense, the roads are more utilitarian (and
> nicer) than separate bike paths.
All of that is true. My interest promoting in utility cycling is only in
thickly settled areas, and those typically don't have the real estate
for bike paths. I like bike paths sometimes, but I don't think they have
much of a role in establishing a culture of utility cycling.
>>>>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_
>>>>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly
>>>>> death traps, it would kill cycling overnight.
>>>>> There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them
>>>> Yes, theoretically, but they have been being built for quite some time
>>>> now -- around the world, and they get used -- usually heavily.
>>> Yes and they've been made compulsory in some places too.
>> Sure, but most of the users find the whole question silly, since they
>> wouldn't be riding without the facilities.
>
> Prove it.
Ask them.
Peter Cole
Continue the lecture with: Cycling in this country is a failure. It is
both far more dangerous than it should be and has become vanishingly
rare, and even then, 80% of it is non-utility, most of that by athletic
(or wannabe) young (or wannabe), men on expensive toys.
A UK study estimated that the positive health effects of cycling on
mortality rates overcome the negative (from car crash) by an order of
magnitude or so. Insisting on a hugely unpopular approach to cycling
(vehicular, aka defective cycling), effectively sentences many thousands
to early deaths from sedentary lives. A Danish study estimated the
return on investment from heath care cost reduction to be $2 for every
$1 spent on infrastructure. It more than pays for itself. It is you who
are causing unnecessary deaths with your rigid and unscientific ideology
-- and you're arrogant to boot.
Vehicular cyclists are always harping on safety issues (to block things
they don't like), while at the same time claiming cycling to be too safe
to be concerned about it. Typically, they answer the wrong question and
solve the wrong problem. The problem is getting a significant part of
the population to use bicycles for utility purposes. The question is why
more people don't do it. Ask the people who could, and don't, and
they'll tell you why. Of course *you* don't believe them. *You* think
they're ignorant. *You* think you can preach them into cycling. Well,
maybe you can, but that hasn't worked *anywhere in the world* yet, so
good luck with your mission. Meanwhile, couch potatoes continue to die
early deaths, and Americans continue to live the heartbreak of chub rub.
Peter Cole
> On Mar 7, 5:51 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> As I said, a plan that doesn't
>> get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan.
>
> If you want to get the average middle-aged American woman on a bike, I
> think you'll need to do _all_ the things they do in northern Europe.
Oh, here we go with the "it can't happen here" argument.
>
> First, raise the price of gas to their level. That would require a
> gas tax immense by American standards.
Right, because the Scandinavians are too poor to afford gas.
> Second, make attaining a driver's license as difficult and costly as
> it is over there.
Right, because its so strict and expensive that nobody has a driving
license in Europe.
> Third, increase the taxes on car purchases to a level equal to
> theirs. Ignore any political repercussions.
Right, car ownership is rare in Scandinavia and Germany (and all the
cars are cheap junk, too).
> Fourth (and maybe most important) re-design American cities so they
> are as dense and as commercially healthy as those European cities.
> That means doing away with most of American suburban sprawl, and
> getting those American housewives to enjoy living in inner-city
> housing.
Cities are dense, everywhere, else they wouldn't be called cities. I'm
not interested in, or advocating, utility cycling in the American
suburbs. I don't think it is a practical alternative. Commuting in and
out of the city, either from nearby districts or intermodal hubs is
practical, that's about it.
Believe or not, many people actually live in cities, even here in the
US! Also, believe it or not, many (if not most to nearly all, I'd
imagine) middle-aged American women, urban-living or not, but certainly
urban, are not "housewives". Did you miss the last half-century or do
you live in a time capsule? Update: after Beaver grew up, Ward let June
go back to work.
> That will do most of the job. After that, you can start with big
> promotional efforts, telling those housewives how beneficial and
> stylish and responsible it is to ride a bike.
No, as you love to point out, people are sheep, they'll just follow what
they see others doing. It would never occur to people to ride a bike
because it's pleasant and efficient. You could ask any middle-aged
female cyclist in Amsterdam or Copenhagen (lots to pick from), or you
could simply read the answers from people who have asked the questions,
listened to the answers, and implemented the plans accordingly (with the
consequent adoption of utility cycling by those very people).
> As I understand, all those things happened in places like Copenhagen.
> On top of that, they had a long history of biking even before those
> factors came into being, so you may want to go back and change
> American history.
You might want to review the history of cycling in those countries. It's
now what you think you know (not surprising). Time travel is not really
necessary to establish utility cycling.
> Oh, and at some point, you may want to change the contours of the land
> to mimic those cities where cycling is really popular. I recall
> reading that flatness correlated particularly well with cycling modal
> share.
Right, Portland has doubled its modal share in a decade. Everyone knows
what a flat city it is, and absolutely nobody cycles in SF.
If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I
could go on) -- just to cycle, why not just claim all hills have to be
downhill both ways? Of course it is known to be a little windier in flat
areas (particularly stuck out in the frickin North Sea). You have ridden
in the wind, right? You have seen the windmills, right? Next you'll be
claiming you can't ride where it gets cold in the winter. Read "Hans
Brinker"?
> If you do all those things, you probably won't even need bike lanes.
> In fact, sharrows would probably work just fine.
Why don't you ask people what they want instead of telling them what
they need?
N8N
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > On 03/07/2010 02:03 PM, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Mar 7, 10:00 am, Ben C<spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> >>> On 2010-03-07, Frank Krygowski<frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Mar 7, 2:19 am, Phil W Lee<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> We recently (Cambridge, England) managed to get 2 car lanes (1 of 2
> >>>>> each way) turned into bike lanes. It's made that section of road a
> >>>>> lot more pleasant.
>
> >>>> With regard to bike lanes, the question is always this: Would the
> >>>> situation be better or worse with the _same_ total width of pavement,
> >>>> but without the separating stripe?
>
> >>>> In almost all cases, it would be better without the stripe. Stripes
> >>>> cause traffic conflicts and accumulation of road debris.
>
> >>> Also cars drive right next to the stripe. If there isn't one, they
> >>> actually tend to give you more room.
>
> >>> The only time a stripe can be useful is in traffic jams because it can
> >>> leave you a clear path to get up the inside. Otherwise you get cars
> >>> higgledly-piggedly across the road which you have to keep weaving in and
> >>> out of.
>
> >>>> If you want to encourage the timid riders who feel they need painted
> >>>> permission to ride, I think sharrows are a far better idea.
>
> >>> What's a sharrow?
>
> >> Dear Ben,
>
> >> A big sign painted on the middle of an ordinary traffic lane with
> >> chevrons (the arrow) and a bicyclist figure (the share-the-lane part):
>
> >> http://bikehugger.com/2006/12/whats-a-sharrow.html
>
> >> I haven't seen any in Colorado, but we recently put up faintly related
> >> yellow metal signs by some roads that show a bicycle (with no rider)
> >> and say "share the road".
>
> >> Cheers,
>
> >> Carl Fogel
>
> > I don't really feel the need for bike lanes, although we do have some
> > here (usually on roads where there's not a whole lot of traffic, at
> > least when I'm on them)
>
> > the SINGLE thing that I think should be done that would make the biggest
> > difference to me personally would be to mandate that all new roads with
> > a speed limit greater than, say, 30 or 35 MPH constructed either have
> > paved shoulders or wide enough lanes that a bicycle and a car can safely
> > coexist without the car having to cross the center line
>
> Fine, what about old roads?
>
> > (e.g. outlawing
> > construction of any more roads like the one that goes by my office,
> > which has a 45-55 MPH speed limit, depending on exactly where we're
> > talking about, but there is a minimum-legal-width lane in each
> > direction, and only a couple inches of pavement to the right of the
> > white stripe, in some areas with a curb and sidewalk. Now the 55 MPH
> > section could be "fixed" simply by widening the pavement by 6 feet or
> > so, were there a will to do it.)
>
> And the room, and the money.
There's definitely room; not sure about the money...
>
> > If only that were done, I'd be riding a heck of a lot more, simply
> > because there'd be more places that I'd consider safely accessible by
> > bicycle.
>
> > On the upside, most of the places that I consider really unsafe to ride
> > a bicycle aren't that close to my house. Unfortunately, one of them is
> > my place of work :/ win some, lose some.
>
> Utility cycling isn't too practical in most low density areas, distances
> are just too great. The whole facilities debate is really an urban issue
> for the most part.- Hide quoted text -
This isn't a low density area, I'm talking specifically here about
eastern Loudoun County. They've just done piss poor planning for any
modes of travel other than by automobile (and not very good at that;
they've got one of the handful of privately owned toll roads because
it was so difficult to get around.)
The point that I was trying to make is that the impression I get is
that the bike lanes are being proposed for roads that people are
cycling on already. Why not then concentrate the money and effort on
roads where cyclists *won't* ride because they feel that it's too
dangerous? Obviously I'm not advocating allowing cyclists on
Interstate highways, but there are a few places where if you avoid
roads that appear to be dangerous, you "can't get there from here" due
to the way the roads are laid out.
As an aside, I also think dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are crap.
Sure, they stop "cut-through" vehicular traffic, but they *also* force
cyclists to use the main roads because there's no alternate path. I
bet emergency responders think they're just great as well.
nate
Ben C
[...]
> If you need to flatten NY, Boston, DC, Chicago, Miami, Galveston, LA (I
> could go on) -- just to cycle, why not just claim all hills have to be
> downhill both ways? Of course it is known to be a little windier in flat
> areas (particularly stuck out in the frickin North Sea). You have ridden
> in the wind, right? You have seen the windmills, right?
Wind bothers the overweight and underpowered sub-20mph cyclist less than
hills. The slower you go, the less the wind hurts you, and the heavier
you are, the more hills do.
Ben C
> they don't like), while at the same time claiming cycling to be too safe
> to be concerned about it. Typically, they answer the wrong question and
> solve the wrong problem. The problem is getting a significant part of
> the population to use bicycles for utility purposes. The question is why
> more people don't do it. Ask the people who could, and don't, and
> they'll tell you why. Of course *you* don't believe them. *You* think
> they're ignorant. *You* think you can preach them into cycling. Well,
> maybe you can, but that hasn't worked *anywhere in the world* yet, so
> good luck with your mission. Meanwhile, couch potatoes continue to die
> early deaths, and Americans continue to live the heartbreak of chub rub.
Why do we have to preach to anybody? If these people don't want to
cycle, let them stay on the couch.
Your position is that you don't mind ruining cycling for the people who
actually like it based on what you think couch potatoes say they want.
N8N
'round here, you also have dog-walkers, people riding or walking side-
by-side, etc. - probably more of them than you do cyclists.
I honestly can't say whether that's better or worse than riding on the
road, makes no real difference to me. The difference is that when on
a path, I'm generally "faster" traffic and am avoiding the slower
traffic; on a road, I'm the "slower" traffic and need to be
considerate of the faster cars approaching from behind. Either way
there's conflict.
Now if you could have a "transportational cyclist only" path that
would be nice, but I ain't gonna hold my breath waiting for that to
happen... (just like it would be nice to have a "people who can drive
properly" only system of roads...)
nate
N8N
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 5:51 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> As I said, a plan that doesn't
> >> get average middle-aged women on bikes isn't a plan.
>
> > If you want to get the average middle-aged American woman on a bike, I
> > think you'll need to do _all_ the things they do in northern Europe.
>
> Oh, here we go with the "it can't happen here" argument.
>
>
>
> > First, raise the price of gas to their level. That would require a
> > gas tax immense by American standards.
>
> Right, because the Scandinavians are too poor to afford gas.
They're probably not "too poor," but fuel is *significantly* more
expensive in most European countries than it is here, by at least 2 or
3x.
>
> > Second, make attaining a driver's license as difficult and costly as
> > it is over there.
>
> Right, because its so strict and expensive that nobody has a driving
> license in Europe.
They have them... I can't speak to Scandinavian countries, but in
Germany acquiring a driver's license requires a lot more training,
testing, etc. and the whole process can cost several thousand
dollars. Compare and contrast with here, where if you have a birth
certificate or passport, can pass an easy multiple-choice test, and
can demonstrate that you can handle a car in a parking lot, you are
licensed to drive. Seriously, proving legal residency is the hardest
part of getting a driver's license in the US.
I'm not going to bother jumping into this argument because I don't
have any strong opinions either way, but Frank's points which you are
dismissing actually do have some validity. (did I just post that?)
nate
Peter Cole
> On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Utility cycling isn't too practical in most low density areas, distances
>> are just too great. The whole facilities debate is really an urban issue
>> for the most part.- Hide quoted text -
>
> This isn't a low density area, I'm talking specifically here about
> eastern Loudoun County. They've just done piss poor planning for any
> modes of travel other than by automobile (and not very good at that;
> they've got one of the handful of privately owned toll roads because
> it was so difficult to get around.)
According to Wikipedia, Loudoun county has grown over 3x since 1990,
still has a population density of only 326/mi^2 (2000, so maybe 500
now?), and has the highest median income in the country. Doesn't sound
like a candidate for a cycling mecca.
> The point that I was trying to make is that the impression I get is
> that the bike lanes are being proposed for roads that people are
> cycling on already. Why not then concentrate the money and effort on
> roads where cyclists *won't* ride because they feel that it's too
> dangerous? Obviously I'm not advocating allowing cyclists on
> Interstate highways, but there are a few places where if you avoid
> roads that appear to be dangerous, you "can't get there from here" due
> to the way the roads are laid out.
Yes, that's true. It's particularly true in Boston on the coastal routes
north and south of the city. Because of lack of room and pressure to
accommodate commuting motorists, existing roads have been crammed with
minimum width lanes and high speed limits have been maintained. As much
as cyclists would often like to get to the shore and the beaches, "you
can't get theah from heah" (as we say).
On roads where commuting congestion is present, there usually is little
political support to widen without generating additional (MV) capacity,
even if there is room and money.
For suburban commuting, the biggest winner around the world (esp. Japan)
is rail to bike, but that's often only biking the last mile at one,
sometimes both, ends.
I grew up in a typical suburb -- a onetime small mill town that
suburbanized after the war. Typically, the modest town center fell into
disuse, and most services and shopping moved to strip malls lining the
local highway (way on one edge of town) or, finally, mega-malls and big
box stores. Commuting to work might be feasible for some hardy souls,
but shopping and general errand running isn't, and I doubt will ever be.
I don't know what the transportation future is for suburban America, but
I don't think the bicycle will play much of a part.
My current community is an older "street car" neighborhood, with a still
vital retail district and a couple of urban mini-malls and big box
outlets within short bike rides, importantly with "back door" bike
routes bypassing the main drags (widened, maximally laned, high speed
cycle hells -- OK, purgatories, anyway). We often combine pleasure and
errands with trips into the city (5 miles as the crow flies or 8 wending
along the river path), as we did yesterday, combining the ride with
lunch and buying a prom dress for my daughter. My wife's crosstown
commute takes 20 minutes by car, 25 by bike and 45 by mass transit.
Our city (Newton, MA) has a population of 80-90K, with a density of
around 5K/mi^2 average, our particular part of the city being much
higher than that average. I consider even that density to be on the
margin for utility cycling. It would be possible to be car-free, but
there'd be a few compromises and adjustments. I doubt that my
neighborhood will become Amsterdam-ish any time soon, but there are many
who don't commute by car, and teenagers often don't bother driving here,
which I gather is somewhat rare around the country. As progressive as my
city likes to believe it is, it has done very little to accommodate
cycling, and utility cycling remains quite unusual. The greenwashed
Whole Foods market doesn't even have adequate bike parking (no matter,
because what they have doesn't get used), and the elementary school at
the end of the street actually prohibits biking.
> As an aside, I also think dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are crap.
> Sure, they stop "cut-through" vehicular traffic, but they *also* force
> cyclists to use the main roads because there's no alternate path. I
> bet emergency responders think they're just great as well.
This is just one of the more recent manifestations of car-centric
planning. People (themselves motorists, usually) don't like motorists
cutting through their neighborhoods. This is a big problem for
communities laid out before auto dominance. As you point out, it has
severe (and unfortunately probably permanent) drawbacks. I have friends
who have moved from here to sun belt areas where they claim there are no
local roads to cycle on at all -- freeways essentially off-ramping into
residential cul-de-sacs. Grim.
damyth
get more denser than NYC.
In NYC they've taken away car lanes and converted them into bike
lanes. I see no reason why this approach wouldn't also work in
Boston. As an example, every third street could be "bike only" aside
for delivery vehicles.
Think about it. In really densely populated areas, where there are
nice alternatives like subways (like MBTA) and buses, why would anyone
NEED to drive aside from making pickups/deliveries?
You ask any New Yorker whether they should drive and most would find
the idea laughable.
I find the idea of building new (as opposed to converting existing)
facilities ludicrous, since you haven't even been able to demonstrate
safety, never mind utility.
> >>>>> In NL, although good (at least subjectively) many of them _are_
> >>>>> compulsory. If they made them compulsory over here, where they're mostly
> >>>>> death traps, it would kill cycling overnight.
> >>>>> There's always a risk they get built, at great expense, nobody uses them
> >>>> Yes, theoretically, but they have been being built for quite some time
> >>>> now -- around the world, and they get used -- usually heavily.
> >>> Yes and they've been made compulsory in some places too.
> >> Sure, but most of the users find the whole question silly, since they
> >> wouldn't be riding without the facilities.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> Ask them.
I don't need to ask. As I said, I see evidence right in my
neighborhood why separate bike paths don't get used by cyclists, and
I've enumerated the reasons why. They get "used" by everybody else.
N8N
> N8N wrote:
> > On Mar 7, 4:15 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Utility cycling isn't too practical in most low density areas, distances
> >> are just too great. The whole facilities debate is really an urban issue
> >> for the most part.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > This isn't a low density area, I'm talking specifically here about
> > eastern Loudoun County. They've just done piss poor planning for any
> > modes of travel other than by automobile (and not very good at that;
> > they've got one of the handful of privately owned toll roads because
> > it was so difficult to get around.)
>
> According to Wikipedia, Loudoun county has grown over 3x since 1990,
> still has a population density of only 326/mi^2 (2000, so maybe 500
> now?), and has the highest median income in the country. Doesn't sound
> like a candidate for a cycling mecca.
Just looking at the statistics is a bit misleading... there's still
lots of farmland, but the eastern portion and the corridor along the
Dulles Greenway is definitely squarely in "suburban" territory, e.g.
Ashburn, Sterling, etc. Basically people working in DC, Arlington,
etc. are moving out there because Arlington and Fairfax counties are
running out of attractive, affordable housing. And businesses are
moving out there as well, because of high rents in the more urban
areas - that's my specific problem, unless I want to try to find
another job, which due to the current economy I am not motivated at
all to do.
>
> > The point that I was trying to make is that the impression I get is
> > that the bike lanes are being proposed for roads that people are
> > cycling on already. Why not then concentrate the money and effort on
> > roads where cyclists *won't* ride because they feel that it's too
> > dangerous? Obviously I'm not advocating allowing cyclists on
> > Interstate highways, but there are a few places where if you avoid
> > roads that appear to be dangerous, you "can't get there from here" due
> > to the way the roads are laid out.
>
> Yes, that's true. It's particularly true in Boston on the coastal routes
> north and south of the city. Because of lack of room and pressure to
> accommodate commuting motorists, existing roads have been crammed with
> minimum width lanes and high speed limits have been maintained. As much
> as cyclists would often like to get to the shore and the beaches, "you
> can't get theah from heah" (as we say).
>
> On roads where commuting congestion is present, there usually is little
> political support to widen without generating additional (MV) capacity,
> even if there is room and money.
And that is where I think a true cycling advocate would concentrate
his efforts - of course this is just my opinion, but let's just use me
as an example. If I wanted to ride to work, the infrastructure is
already there for me to get maybe 2-3 miles away from my office with
no problems at all - the total distance is something like 30 miles,
and I can get on a MUP maybe 2 miles from my house, parallel the
Dulles Toll Road, and end up in Herndon without any major challenges.
But those last few miles are what's keeping me from seriously
attempting it; it appears just flat out suicidal.
If that "problem" were solved, I can't say that I would ride *every
day* or even most days - but even a handful of days every month would
be that much less fuel that I'm burning, and that much better shape
that I'd be in, with consequent lower HC costs etc.
> For suburban commuting, the biggest winner around the world (esp. Japan)
> is rail to bike, but that's often only biking the last mile at one,
> sometimes both, ends.
And again that is an area where around here things could easily be
improved - they're building Metro out to Dulles Airport which would in
one fell swoop cut my cycling distance to work from 30 miles to more
like 4 or 5 - if only I could take a bike on Metro. Unfortunately,
bicycles are prohibited on Metro during rush hour; guess when I
typically go to work. Dumb, dumb, dumb.
I suppose I could buy another beater bike and leave it stashed either
in Herndon or the airport, but that seems like an extreme solution;
then I'd also have to leave my good bike locked up at the Metro
station all day, which I'm not 100% comfortable with. Or buy two
beater bikes.
I guess my point is, that it's not the lack of bike lanes that is
keeping me from riding more - it's the complete unsuitability of a few
roads, which are the *only* roads that serve places that I want to go,
for bicycle traffic, and also to a lesser extent the inability to mix
cycling with public transportation use.
That's another peeve, but typically where there is not a bike rack,
I've usually been able to find a railing, metal fence, etc. to lock up
to. My office doesn't have a bike rack, but again, nobody rides to
work, so it's a non-issue (could fit a bike in my office anyway.)
>
> > As an aside, I also think dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are crap.
> > Sure, they stop "cut-through" vehicular traffic, but they *also* force
> > cyclists to use the main roads because there's no alternate path. I
> > bet emergency responders think they're just great as well.
>
> This is just one of the more recent manifestations of car-centric
> planning. People (themselves motorists, usually) don't like motorists
> cutting through their neighborhoods. This is a big problem for
> communities laid out before auto dominance. As you point out, it has
> severe (and unfortunately probably permanent) drawbacks. I have friends
> who have moved from here to sun belt areas where they claim there are no
> local roads to cycle on at all -- freeways essentially off-ramping into
> residential cul-de-sacs. Grim.
Yup, but when I become World Dictator I will mandate that every new
subdivision have at least two connections to main roads, and that they
be two different roads. Wait for it.
nate
Jay Beattie
>
> - Show quoted text -
We are not the sunshine capitol of the world, that's for sure -- but
this year, our weather is pretty damn good compared to California!
Anyway, the second video is of a rider going from Ladd's Addition on
the eastside up to OHSU, and the first video is going south from town
to Hillsdale and Burlingame -- both under five miles and
representative of the usual commutes. I would say most sub-ten mile
commutes in to town are going to be pretty good for cyclists -- if
they pick the right roads. My co-worker commutes all east side about
12 miles on the Springwater trail -- not my cup of tea, but he likes
it. Another goes straight over the hills and down Thompson. You are
not going to get Joe couch potato to do 1,000 feet of climbing, but it
is a peacefull route for the most part.
Mileages beyond five or ten miles also put riders in other counties
and cities with their own infrastructure issues -- Washington county,
for example, with notoriously nasty drivers, narrow roads and lack of
bicycle facilities, but even that is changing slowly.
The real problem around here is congestion and old infrastructure,
which is why I think we should spend our money on roads with wide
shoulders and not magical boxes, bike trails and other special bicycle
infrastructure. -- Jay Beattie.
(PeteCresswell)
>
>As an aside, I also think dead end streets and cul-de-sacs are crap.
>Sure, they stop "cut-through" vehicular traffic, but they *also* force
>cyclists to use the main roads because there's no alternate path. I
>bet emergency responders think they're just great as well.
I'm in the Philadelphia PA (USA) area - i.e. old infrastructure.
Spent the last three days working out a bike route between
Radnor/Villanova and Conshohocken. Finally got it with only a
couple tenths of a mile of questionable safety, but only by
cutting though a green area whose owner remains unknown.
For my money, the single biggest improvement they could make
around here would be a system of right-of-ways joining
cul-de-sacs. It would instantly create an entire network of bike
routes without building a single bike lane or painting a single
white line.
--
PeteCresswell
Peter Cole
The question is whether the 10x rate of cycling in Germany, or 25x rate
in the Netherlands relative to the US is primarily due to economic
considerations. While licensing and operation costs may well be higher,
actual car ownership per capita in Europe and Japan is not very
different than the US, even though the US exceeds 1 car per licensed
driver. Mileage in the US has been shown to be not too cost elastic.
There are a number of economic differences, but polls of European
cyclists don't indicate economics as being a big factor, neither do car
ownership rates.
N8N
Absolutely. And you could keep the "I don't want vehicles cutting
down *my* street" busybodies happy by making them suitable for walkers
or cyclists but *not* cars, although that doesn't address the issue of
quick access by ambulances, fire trucks, etc. If that is the case, it
doesn't even necessarily have to be paved; just throw down some gravel
to define the path and call it good. IOW, I'm with you bro, let's
make it happen!
Unfortunately, where I encounter these issues are not so much where I
live, but in other jurisdictions where I do not vote :/
nate