Gems about facilities, motorists and more.
James
James
> http://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10218/
Yet more gems http://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/90937/
Enjoy!
JS.
Duane Hebert
> http://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10218/
>
> Enjoy!
The first one is about a study done in Montreal. I posted a link to
this before.
Duane Hebert
Sorry, hit send by mistake. I wanted to add that it's a very well
respected study here and the city has used it as justification to
continue with their plan of including cycling facilities in their
general push to reduce dependency on cars.
Some offshoots of this, beside new facilities and increased Bixi
stations are that they are now looking at building parking facilities
for bikes, adding more subway trains that carry bikes and increasing
information campaigns on the benefits of cycling and the need to share
the road.
AMuzi
> http://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10218/
from that page:
"factors that improve the safety of motor vehicle occupants
may actually increase the risk to vulnerable road users "
Chalo's spike on the steering column might help that.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> http://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10218/
>
> Enjoy!
>
> JS.
DD A NN N GGGG EEEEEE RRRRR !!
D DD A A N N N G G E R R !!
D D A A N N N G E R R !!
D D A A N N N G GGG EEEE RRRRR !!
D D AAAAAAAAA N N N G G G E R R !!
D DD A A N N N G G E R R
DD A A N NN GGGG EEEEEE R R !!
DD A NN N GGGG EEEEEE RRRRR !!
D DD A A N N N G G E R R !!
D D A A N N N G E R R !!
D D A A N N N G GGG EEEE RRRRR !!
D D AAAAAAAAA N N N G G G E R R !!
D DD A A N N N G G E R R
DD A A N NN GGGG EEEEEE R R !!
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Frank Krygowski
> On 3/11/2011 9:22 AM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>
> > On 3/11/2011 1:24 AM, James wrote:
> >>http://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10218/
>
> >> Enjoy!
>
> > The first one is about a study done in Montreal. I posted a link to this
> > before.
>
> Sorry, hit send by mistake. I wanted to add that it's a very well
> respected study here and the city has used it as justification to
> continue with their plan of including cycling facilities in their
> general push to reduce dependency on cars.
Of course it's a study that's well respected - by people who are
looking for any possible justification for segregated facilities, and/
or those who read the abstract and go no further! Lusk has been a
paint-and-path salesperson for many years, so her fans certainly feel
no need to actually examine the data and logic.
OTOH, those who have read and thought about it in more detail are much
more skeptical. Here are the bases for skepticism:
Briefly, Lusk chose parallel roads she claimed were similar, except
for bike tracks. She examined the injury data she could find, did
some very questionable mathematical adjustments based on estimates of
rider counts, and even more questionable data on car crash data, and
concluded there was about 25% less hazard in the bike tracks.
But her data on rider counts is sketchy, based on sampling in a
limited number of months plus some serious extrapolation. The use of
motorist crash data to generate fudge factors that are then applied to
bike crashes is weird at best. It's the kind of thing I'd use to
downgrade a freshman lab report.
Most damning is the idea that the streets chosen for comparison are
sufficiently similar. Those who have ridden them and those who have
used Google Maps to examine them find the idea of equivalence to be
ludicrous. Here's one traffic engineer's summary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Brebeuf is a 1-way very narrow residential street with
parking on
both sides. Reference St Denis is 2-way with 4 narrow lanes with
much
more commercial activity. Parking lanes are wide enough to
provide a
door zone bike area. Conclusion: St Denis is not at all
comparable.
Brefeuf would be much safer for bicycling irrespective of the
cycle track.
2. Rachael Ouest is a 2-lane busy commercial street with parking
on both
sides. Reference Mont Royal is similar. The RR is 1.18, and
though it is
not statistically significant, it indicates that the cycle track
on
Rachael makes bicycling more dangerous.
3. Berri is a divided 4-lane limited access for the .8km from
Cherrier to
Maisonneuve (except for at grade crossing with Ontario). Berri
tunnels
under Sherbrooke. It is predominantly a through street.
Reference St.
Denis is 4 lanes with parking on both sides. It has a parking
lane wide
enough to act as a door zone bike area. There is considerable
commercial
activity. There are at least 7 more intersections on St. Denis
than on
Berri. These streets are not comparable. By its nature, Berri
would have
far fewer conflicts and be safer for bicycling irrespective of
the cycle
track.
4. Maisonneuve is a 1 lane 1-way 30 kph street with parking on
the side
opposite the cycle track. References St Catherine and Sherbrooke
are 2-4
lanes 2-way with parking on both sides. These streets are not
comparable. Maisonneuve would have far fewer conflicts and be
safer
irrespective of the cycle track.
5. Christophe Colomb: Pending
6. Rene Levesque is a 6 lane divided with parking in places.
Reference
Sherbrooke is 4 lanes undivided with parking in places. The
parking lane
is wide enough to provide a door zone bike area. Because Rene
Levesque
is divided and Sherbrooke has a door zone bike area, Rene
Levesque would
by its nature be safer than Sherbrooke irrespective of the cycle
track
on Rene Levesque.
See http://tinyurl.com/4snooy4
Of the 6 cycle tracks in the Montreal paper, just #2 and #5 have
reference streets that are similar in character. Those two cycle
tracks
are just as dangerous in terms of RR as their reference streets, as
shown in Table 2 of Lusk's paper.
... Near the end of the Christophe Colomb cycle track
section (3.7 km long) included a complex intersection area (Boulevard
Cremaize and Metropolitan Expressway), that likely had many MOV
collisions, while the CC reference street (2.3 km long) did not. This
would make the cycle track seem really good. The CC cycle track
section
would be more like the CC reference section if they left out that
intersection and were both 2.3 km long.
This is a way they worked to get the results they want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also
http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/_archives/2011/2/11/4748152.html#comments
Richard Moeur is not a landscape architect. He's a professional
transportation engineer, as is the individual I quoted above (whose
name I'm not giving, since that correspondence was not public). John
Allen is a nationally known expert in cycling.
In general, and as usual, the people who are touting this study are
the landscape architects and the "save the world" sociologists. The
people doubting it are the engineers and the people who have the
background technical knowledge of mathematics, cycling and traffic
interactions.
And BTW, its numerical conclusions are opposite that of the recent
Copenhagen study. That one didn't pick two streets that it pretended
were similar; it used the exact same streets before and after the
installation of facilities like these. It found definite increases in
crashes.
Anne Lusk and the landscape architect crew don't seem to want that
article trumpeted. Go figure.
- Frank Krygowski
Jay Beattie
I remember riding for the first time in SW Portland in the late 70s
while visiting family and encountering my first bicycle chute -- a
lane that was physically separated from traffic by a curb. The lane
was filled with crap, and at every intersection (there were lots of
residential feeder streets coming up to this arterial), you had a
chute-and-barrier potential, with the barrier being a car attempting
to enter traffic and blocking the lane. That lane got ripped out in
the 80s or early 90s because it was a hazard. It was replaced with a
wide shoulder and striped lane, which can be swept and which I ride
all the time without significant fear. I'm wondering why the
previously rejected curbed-off bicycle lane is now being seen as the
great saviour for bicyclists. Can you get a street sweeper in there?:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/26803869@N00/3567801387/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45865628@N04/4901298122/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrimcm/4173075269/
These are also two-way bicycle lanes, which have their own risks. --
Jay Beattie.
-- Jay Beattie.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
> I remember riding for the first time in SW Portland in the late 70s
> while visiting family and encountering my first bicycle chute -- a
> lane that was physically separated from traffic by a curb. The lane
> was filled with crap, and at every intersection (there were lots of
> residential feeder streets coming up to this arterial), you had a
> chute-and-barrier potential, with the barrier being a car attempting
> to enter traffic and blocking the lane. That lane got ripped out in
> the 80s or early 90s because it was a hazard. It was replaced with a
> wide shoulder and striped lane, which can be swept and which I ride
> all the time without significant fear. I'm wondering why the
> previously rejected curbed-off bicycle lane is now being seen as the
> great saviour for bicyclists. Can you get a street sweeper in there?:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/26803869@N00/3567801387/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/45865628@N04/4901298122/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/adrimcm/4173075269/
All three examples are decidedly anti-cyclist.
Peter Cole
With all its flaws, I'd still gladly exchange your safety numbers with ours.
Peter Cole
> I'm wondering why the
> previously rejected curbed-off bicycle lane is now being seen as the
> great saviour for bicyclists. Can you get a street sweeper in there?:
You might have to order it from Denmark.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/ultimate-bike-lane-snow-clearance.html
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Have other factors been controlled for? For example, the negative
psychological effects of the higher population density in Boston
relative to Portland, or the differing social norms of behavior, both of
which would favor Portland.
Peter Cole
Portland's numbers have been getting better, let's just say I'd settle
for similar improvement, then.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Easy to afford with new vehicle taxes being approximately 100%.
Jay Beattie
>
To reiterate, we got rid of the particular chute I was complaining
about, although we got another chute or two elsewhere, but those are
parked car chutes, and when the cars are gone, you can clean them
out. Those mini-sweepers are pretty slick, but the chances of PDX
buying mini-sweepers is zero. Plus, as I always say, that money would
be better spent on fixing the roads -- or at least the ones I ride on.
We are not Holland or Denmark and never will be -- this place has
hills, and you're not going to get granny cranking up some twenty
percent grade to get back to her apartment. http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevrj77/4915414754/
That's part of one of my commute routes, and the pavement on the
downhill is so broken up that I have to creep along to avoid getting
bucked off my bike. Cars are the least of my worries. I let them
pile up behind me. Own the road! Be strong my brother! (BTW, follow
the road straight -- the building peeking over the trees is my
office.)
There are a lot of flat spots (particularly the eastside -- which is
pretty flat after about 82nd), and you could have bicycle-centric
communities -- and there are a lot of bicycle facilities on the
rolling eastside close-in that get a lot of use, but once past 82nd
and in to the flatlands, you're talking cowboy country, then between
about 120th and 160th you're in the pin-head region, then Gresham and
then the Gorge. You will never, ever get the pick-up set to switch to
bicycling. That's for queers, although with gas prices trending up, I
might try breaking in to the market for confederate flippy-flags.
Those rednecks might be forced on to bikes, and the local shop owners
are going to have to be prepared with appropriate accessories.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/km/5333283345/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/3028077376/ -- Jay Beattie.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
Yes, free speech is not *yet* criminalized in the US.
> -- this place has
> hills, and you're not going to get granny cranking up some twenty
> percent grade to get back to her apartment. http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevrj77/4915414754/
Last paved in 1970?
> That's part of one of my commute routes, and the pavement on the
> downhill is so broken up that I have to creep along to avoid getting
> bucked off my bike. Cars are the least of my worries. I let them
> pile up behind me. Own the road! Be strong my brother! (BTW, follow
> the road straight -- the building peeking over the trees is my
> office.)
>
> There are a lot of flat spots (particularly the eastside -- which is
> pretty flat after about 82nd), and you could have bicycle-centric
> communities -- and there are a lot of bicycle facilities on the
> rolling eastside close-in that get a lot of use, but once past 82nd
> and in to the flatlands, you're talking cowboy country, then between
> about 120th and 160th you're in the pin-head region, then Gresham and
> then the Gorge. You will never, ever get the pick-up set to switch to
> bicycling.
Make them choose between bicycles and walking, then. :)
> That's for queers, although with gas prices trending up, I
> might try breaking in to the market for confederate flippy-flags.
> Those rednecks might be forced on to bikes, and the local shop owners
> are going to have to be prepared with appropriate accessories.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/km/5333283345/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/3028077376/ -- Jay Beattie.
Why is not flying the Confederate Flag considered treasonous?
Peter Cole
> On 3/12/2011 4:45 PM, Peter Cole wrote:
>> On 3/12/2011 4:42 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering why the
>>> previously rejected curbed-off bicycle lane is now being seen as the
>>> great saviour for bicyclists. Can you get a street sweeper in there?:
>>
>> You might have to order it from Denmark.
>>
>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/ultimate-bike-lane-snow-clearance.html
>>
>>
>
> Easy to afford with new vehicle taxes being approximately 100%.
>
Don't forget the fuel taxes.
Peter Cole
> On Mar 12, 2:49 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Portland's numbers have been getting better, let's just say I'd settle
>> for similar improvement, then.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> To reiterate, we got rid of the particular chute I was complaining
> about, although we got another chute or two elsewhere, but those are
> parked car chutes, and when the cars are gone, you can clean them
> out. Those mini-sweepers are pretty slick, but the chances of PDX
> buying mini-sweepers is zero. Plus, as I always say, that money would
> be better spent on fixing the roads -- or at least the ones I ride on.
Ok, changing topic from safety to economics...
If your roads are crap, you need to raise taxes to pay for better ones.
That has nothing to do with bicycles.
As for the exorbitant cost of bike facilities, consider that despite all
the apocalyptic hyperbole, there are only something like 200 miles of
mostly painted bike lanes in NYC out of a base of something like 15K
miles of urban streets. I imagine the ratios in Portland are something
similar, but the critics never actually post numbers.
Consider only patching the potholes in the bike lanes, your investment
would last forever without the constant pounding by vehicles, and you'd
only have to maintain a small fraction of the actual road width for a
small fraction of the actual roads.
> We are not Holland or Denmark and never will be -- this place has
> hills, and you're not going to get granny cranking up some twenty
> percent grade to get back to her apartment. http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevrj77/4915414754/
OK, switching to terrain, obviously Portland is a poor candidate city
for a bike revival, oh, wait... In any case, I didn't think Portland had
any elderly, I thought they all moved to the hills of Florida, oh, wait...
> That's part of one of my commute routes, and the pavement on the
> downhill is so broken up that I have to creep along to avoid getting
> bucked off my bike. Cars are the least of my worries. I let them
> pile up behind me. Own the road! Be strong my brother! (BTW, follow
> the road straight -- the building peeking over the trees is my
> office.)
Back to pavement -- see above.
> There are a lot of flat spots (particularly the eastside -- which is
> pretty flat after about 82nd), and you could have bicycle-centric
> communities -- and there are a lot of bicycle facilities on the
> rolling eastside close-in that get a lot of use, but once past 82nd
> and in to the flatlands, you're talking cowboy country, then between
> about 120th and 160th you're in the pin-head region, then Gresham and
> then the Gorge. You will never, ever get the pick-up set to switch to
> bicycling. That's for queers, although with gas prices trending up, I
> might try breaking in to the market for confederate flippy-flags.
> Those rednecks might be forced on to bikes, and the local shop owners
> are going to have to be prepared with appropriate accessories.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/km/5333283345/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/3028077376/ -- Jay Beattie.
OK, on to culture, of course that can never be changed, so you can't
compare it to places like Denmark where people never abandoned cycling,
oh, wait...
Duane Hebert
They use the machines that clean the sidewalk in the winter. The pics
you show don't seem particularly filled with crap to me though. The
problem that we have here is with the pot holes. They don't exist only
on the right though. I hit one Friday night on the way to Tremblant in
the center of a highway. We were taking my car because my wife's was
being repaired from a similar event the day before.
> These are also two-way bicycle lanes, which have their own risks. --
>
Yep. Don't know of any fatalities due to them here yet.
Duane Hebert
keeps the union snow clearing guy working year round.
Frank Krygowski
>
> As for the exorbitant cost of bike facilities, consider that despite all
> the apocalyptic hyperbole, there are only something like 200 miles of
> mostly painted bike lanes in NYC out of a base of something like 15K
> miles of urban streets. I imagine the ratios in Portland are something
> similar, but the critics never actually post numbers.
Neither do the "We must have bike lanes everywhere" proponents.
Your NYC figures are interesting, because Duane was greatly offended
by my statement that there are no bike facilities on 99.999% of
America's (or Canada's) streets and roads. And here you are,
confirming that even bike-trendy cities have maybe 1% of roads
"facilitized."
So the message to the folks that never hear words like "vehicle" or
"education" regarding bikes? "We can't safely ride on 99+% of the
roads." And that message is considered bicycling promotion??
You _must_ be able to envision some more logical way of promoting
bicycling.
> Consider only patching the potholes in the bike lanes, your investment
> would last forever without the constant pounding by vehicles, and you'd
> only have to maintain a small fraction of the actual road width for a
> small fraction of the actual roads.
Fantasies abound here! Do you seriously think bike trails' surfaces
don't go to hell over time? And do you seriously think anyone with
responsibility for such matters would ever say "Just pave the bike
lane; let the car lanes turn into craters"?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
> On 3/12/2011 5:45 PM, Peter Cole wrote:> On 3/12/2011 4:42 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> >> I'm wondering why the
> >> previously rejected curbed-off bicycle lane is now being seen as the
> >> great saviour for bicyclists. Can you get a street sweeper in there?:
>
> > You might have to order it from Denmark.
>
>
> Similar to the ones here in Montreal that I was referring to. And it
> keeps the union snow clearing guy working year round.
:-) Well, keeping union guys in work is _really_ popular right now!
But I wonder how many of those machines exist in Canada, and in the
U.S. In our area, we set a new record for snowfall this year,
absolutely obliterating the old one. The busiest sidewalks in our
village got cleared by Streets Department workers exactly once.
And in our area, main streets get cleared of gravel by a street
sweeper twice per year, because of costs. I wouldn't be optimistic
about talking them into buying a new machine for some new bike
facilities.
In fact, there was a public meeting here regarding enhancing
pedestrian, bike and public transportation, several months ago.
During the meet-&-greet time before the formal presentations, I said
to one of the engineers running things "Of course, there are problems
with separating bikes..." he interrupted and said "Oh, I know! The
maintenance issues are a _real_ concern!" That wasn't what I was
going to emphasize, but it loomed large in his mind. Later, others
went into detail on exactly the topics I mention here.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
> On Mar 13, 1:57 pm, Duane Hebert <s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
>
> > On 3/12/2011 5:45 PM, Peter Cole wrote:> On 3/12/2011 4:42 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > >> I'm wondering why the
> > >> previously rejected curbed-off bicycle lane is now being seen as the
> > >> great saviour for bicyclists. Can you get a street sweeper in there?:
>
> > > You might have to order it from Denmark.
>
> > >http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/ultimate-bike-lane-snow-clearanc...
>
> > Similar to the ones here in Montreal that I was referring to. And it
> > keeps the union snow clearing guy working year round.
>
> :-) Well, keeping union guys in work is _really_ popular right now!
>
> But I wonder how many of those machines exist in Canada, and in the
> U.S. In our area, we set a new record for snowfall this year,
> absolutely obliterating the old one. The busiest sidewalks in our
> village got cleared by Streets Department workers exactly once.
>
> And in our area, main streets get cleared of gravel by a street
> sweeper twice per year, because of costs. I wouldn't be optimistic
> about talking them into buying a new machine for some new bike
> facilities.
>
When they eventually get around to sweeping the post ice-sanding muck
out of the bike lanes here, the muck has already migrated toward the
gutter enough to give a bit of clear pavement in the bike lane, but
the sweeping just dredges it back out of the gutter and smears it back
over the entire width again (removing *some* of the muck volume in the
process, I suppose).
> In fact, there was a public meeting here regarding enhancing
> pedestrian, bike and public transportation, several months ago.
> During the meet-&-greet time before the formal presentations, I said
> to one of the engineers running things "Of course, there are problems
> with separating bikes..." he interrupted and said "Oh, I know! The
> maintenance issues are a _real_ concern!" That wasn't what I was
> going to emphasize, but it loomed large in his mind. Later, others
> went into detail on exactly the topics I mention here.
>
When they patch, they leave it mounded a bit - like they do in motor
lanes because they expect cars and trucks to compress the patch. But
bikes don't compress the patch, so it remains a bump. Sometimes I
swear they must do a lousy job of maintenance in the bike lane on
purpose.
Frank Krygowski
>
> When they patch, they leave it mounded a bit - like they do in motor
> lanes because they expect cars and trucks to compress the patch. But
> bikes don't compress the patch, so it remains a bump. Sometimes I
> swear they must do a lousy job of maintenance in the bike lane on
> purpose.
For what it's worth, I once saw a brief TV info-tainment article on
(IIRC) Davis, CA's bike friendliness. The one feature I really liked
was this: the reporter said that when they repair a pothole, an
ordinance requires the patch to be within 1/4" of the level of the
surrounding pavement.
- Frank Krygowski
AMuzi
Like those drunk guys weaving with no lights, wide bars and
double baskets full of crud? They ride wrong-way in bike
lanes too.
Peter Cole
> On Mar 13, 8:12 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> As for the exorbitant cost of bike facilities, consider that despite all
>> the apocalyptic hyperbole, there are only something like 200 miles of
>> mostly painted bike lanes in NYC out of a base of something like 15K
>> miles of urban streets. I imagine the ratios in Portland are something
>> similar, but the critics never actually post numbers.
>
> Neither do the "We must have bike lanes everywhere" proponents.
Well they usually brag about how many miles have been installed, but
even in the most facilitated cities it's only a fraction. It doesn't
need to be a large fraction, either.
>
> Your NYC figures are interesting, because Duane was greatly offended
> by my statement that there are no bike facilities on 99.999% of
> America's (or Canada's) streets and roads. And here you are,
> confirming that even bike-trendy cities have maybe 1% of roads
> "facilitized."
As I've said a bazillion times, I don't see the need for facilities
outside of cities for the most part, and even there only a minority of
streets.
> So the message to the folks that never hear words like "vehicle" or
> "education" regarding bikes? "We can't safely ride on 99+% of the
> roads." And that message is considered bicycling promotion??
As I've said a bazillion times, safe doesn't mean pleasant.
> You _must_ be able to envision some more logical way of promoting
> bicycling.
I don't offer logic, just favor giving people what they prefer.
>> Consider only patching the potholes in the bike lanes, your investment
>> would last forever without the constant pounding by vehicles, and you'd
>> only have to maintain a small fraction of the actual road width for a
>> small fraction of the actual roads.
>
> Fantasies abound here! Do you seriously think bike trails' surfaces
> don't go to hell over time?
My driveway doesn't, my street does. I'll leave you to figure that one out.
> And do you seriously think anyone with
> responsibility for such matters would ever say "Just pave the bike
> lane; let the car lanes turn into craters"?
I might, if people wouldn't raise/allocate the revenue. I'm no fan of
crap infrastructure, I think it's dumb fiscally, but there's a lot of
dumb going around.
Peter Cole
> On Mar 13, 1:57 pm, Duane Hebert<s...@flarn2.com> wrote:
>> On 3/12/2011 5:45 PM, Peter Cole wrote:> On 3/12/2011 4:42 PM, Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm wondering why the
>>>> previously rejected curbed-off bicycle lane is now being seen as the
>>>> great saviour for bicyclists. Can you get a street sweeper in there?:
>>
>>> You might have to order it from Denmark.
>>
>>> http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/12/ultimate-bike-lane-snow-clearanc...
>>
>> Similar to the ones here in Montreal that I was referring to. And it
>> keeps the union snow clearing guy working year round.
>
> :-) Well, keeping union guys in work is _really_ popular right now!
>
> But I wonder how many of those machines exist in Canada, and in the
> U.S. In our area, we set a new record for snowfall this year,
> absolutely obliterating the old one. The busiest sidewalks in our
> village got cleared by Streets Department workers exactly once.
>
> And in our area, main streets get cleared of gravel by a street
> sweeper twice per year, because of costs. I wouldn't be optimistic
> about talking them into buying a new machine for some new bike
> facilities.
I agree that it would make little sense for a "village", a big city
would be a different matter.
>
> In fact, there was a public meeting here regarding enhancing
> pedestrian, bike and public transportation, several months ago.
> During the meet-&-greet time before the formal presentations, I said
> to one of the engineers running things "Of course, there are problems
> with separating bikes..." he interrupted and said "Oh, I know! The
> maintenance issues are a _real_ concern!" That wasn't what I was
> going to emphasize, but it loomed large in his mind. Later, others
> went into detail on exactly the topics I mention here.
No surprise, your area isn't really dense enough to justify or support
facilities.
Jay Beattie
>
> OK, switching to terrain, obviously Portland is a poor candidate city
> for a bike revival, oh, wait... In any case, I didn't think Portland had
> any elderly, I thought they all moved to the hills of Florida, oh, wait...
You seem to think I am against all bicycle facilities. I'm not. Just
chutes and expensive and sometimes problematic physically separate
facilities. The dominant bicycle facility is the roadway, and a
roadway that is dangerous due to ruts, potholes and poor drainage is
far more of risk to cyclists than the absence of a separate, bicycle
habitrail. Another issue with physically separate facilities is that
you need arterials to support them, and like bus and train lines, they
can't go everywhere. You will always need feeders and collectors,
etc. unless you live in Assen or some other city that was designed
around a bicycle grid. Keeping the roads in good condition is a
priority for bicyclists and motorists and should come before separate
bicyclce facilities. And I'll let you sell the notion of additional
taxes for special bicycle facilities. -- Jay Beattie.
Duane Hebert
Right now I would settle for selling the notion of fixing some of the
bloody potholes.
I can't drive over them with a car. Cycling on them is not going to be
fun. This year seems worse than ever.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
> Right now I would settle for selling the notion of fixing some of the
> bloody potholes.
> I can't drive over them with a car.
I often end up driving this instead of my Civic to avoid pothole and rut
damage:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/5281773083/in/set-72157625524578309/>.
> Cycling on them is not going to be
> fun. This year seems worse than ever.
>
> http://www.montrealgazette.com/Weather+random+acts+create+perfect+conditions+potholes/4428382/story.html
>
Also:
<http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Pothole+disrupts+traffic+Catherine/3118364/story.html>
<http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Monster+Montreal+pothole+blamed+knocking+driver/4431138/story.html>
At a minimum on the worst sections, they need to mill to the bottom of
pothole depth, use a geotextile to minimize reflection cracking, and
overlay with a polymer modified [1] asphalt mix.
To really fix the roads, the need to remove the pavement, chemically
stabilize the base, add a drainage layer and subdrains, then repave.
[1] To reduce viscosity changes with temperature, that leads to rutting
in hot weather, and cracking in cold weather.
Nate Nagel
yeah, it's not been a good year for pavement. I don't remember hitting
any major hole in particular, but somehow I ended up with a shake in my
car that the shop diagnosed as needing two rims replaced and an
alignment to fix. Of course it's an Impala so it ALWAYS needs an
alignment... but that's another rant for another time... why did my
Porsche only need one alignment after I had the struts replaced and it
was good for years afterwards?
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
I destroyed a tire and bent a rim on a City of Madison pothole in my
1994 Civic Si.
Duane Hebert
Wife's car was in the shop because of a pot hole so we took mine for a
ski weekend. I hit one getting on the highway and now my alignment is shot.
We have this problem every year but this year seems worse. They've
started sending crews out now to fix them but it hasn't thawed yet so
it's hard and ineffective work. At least patching some of the worse
ones may prevent some damage.
The basic problem here is that we have a short season. They can't fix
them all. They try to patch but the patches don't last.
AMuzi
> On 3/13/2011 7:58 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> On 03/13/2011 08:54 PM, Tºm Shermªn™ °_° > wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2011 7:21 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Right now I would settle for selling the notion of fixing some of the
>>>> bloody potholes.
>>>> I can't drive over them with a car.
>>>
>>> I often end up driving this instead of my Civic to avoid pothole and rut
>>> damage:
>>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/19704682@N08/5281773083/in/set-72157625524578309/>.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Cycling on them is not going to be
>>>> fun. This year seems worse than ever.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.montrealgazette.com/Weather+random+acts+create+perfect+conditions+potholes/4428382/story.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Also:
>>>
>>> <http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Pothole+disrupts+traffic+Catherine/3118364/story.html>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At a minimum on the worst sections, they need to mill to the bottom of
>>> pothole depth, use a geotextile to minimize reflection cracking, and
>>> overlay with a polymer modified [1] asphalt mix.
>>>
>>> To really fix the roads, the need to remove the pavement, chemically
>>> stabilize the base, add a drainage layer and subdrains, then repave.
>>>
>>> [1] To reduce viscosity changes with temperature, that leads to rutting
>>> in hot weather, and cracking in cold weather.
>>>
>>
>> yeah, it's not been a good year for pavement. I don't remember hitting
>> any major hole in particular, but somehow I ended up with a shake in my
>> car that the shop diagnosed as needing two rims replaced and an
>> alignment to fix. Of course it's an Impala so it ALWAYS needs an
>> alignment... but that's another rant for another time... why did my
>> Porsche only need one alignment after I had the struts replaced and it
>> was good for years afterwards?
>
> I destroyed a tire and bent a rim on a City of Madison pothole in my
> 1994 Civic Si.
>
Probably some money but they hurt more on a bicycle.
Frank Krygowski
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 7:21 PM, Duane Hebert wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Right now I would settle for selling the notion of fixing some of the
> > bloody potholes.
> > I can't drive over them with a car.
>
> I often end up driving this instead of my Civic to avoid pothole and rut
> damage:
>
> > Cycling on them is not going to be
> > fun. This year seems worse than ever.
>
>
> Also:
>
> <http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Pothole+disrupts+traffic+Catherin...>
> <http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Monster+Montreal+pothole+blamed+k...>
I like that last one. Hit the pothole with his car, got knocked out,
despite the airbag.
If that were a bicycle, they'd have used the words "brain damage" and
chided him for improper headgear.
- Frank Krygowski
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Yes, the driver would have benefited from a proper automotive helmet.
Peter Cole
I think you've been watching Frank's black & white TV. If a mode gets 6%
share, it justifies 6% of the budget. Even the most "facilitated" cities
in Europe have a minority of the streets "facilitated". A "facilitation"
with growing support is the bicycle boulevard, a normal street with
traffic calming and limited vehicle access. I see no reason why, in
addition to those changes, the pavement and cleaning couldn't be
maintained at a higher level on those streets. It's just a matter of
priority and fairness.
(PeteCresswell)
>I like that last one. Hit the pothole with his car, got knocked out,
>despite the airbag.
>
>If that were a bicycle, they'd have used the words "brain damage" and
>chided him for improper headgear.
The way I read it, it was worse: it was the air bag that knocked
him out.
--
PeteCresswell
Jay Beattie
>
Right. I just about got killed this morning by a car travelling
45-55mph (posted 45mph) because I had to weave in to the road to avoid
a newly formed pothole right here:
http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2009/09/22/biking-on-barbur-boulevard-and-those-bridges/
The roadway through there is now giant holes, probably 2-4" deep. I
was already taking the lane. I've been riding this stretch of road
for 26 years, and I have never seen it so bad and have never felt so
imperiled. Now, we could take the $50K that it would take to fix that
roadway and put it in to, let's say, a bike chute somewhere or
something that will make the beach cruiser crowd feel all warm and
fuzzy on their Saturday fun ride to the park, but frankly, that is not
going to make actual commuting any safer in this city. The greatest
improvement in bicycle safety will come from fixing the roads, at
least in this city. YMMV.
Also, local funding for capital improvements comes from gas tax.
There is only so much gas tax. We don't pay gas tax for cycling, so
your 6% modal share argument is neat, but it leaves out the funding
source. It also begs the counter argument of "why do we motorists have
to pay for bicycle infrastructure -- let the bicyclists pay for that"
-- which I hear quite frequently. I'd love to pay more taxes . . .
not. Oregon is already tax hell. -- Jay Beattie.
Chalo
>
> Also, local funding for capital improvements comes from gas tax.
> There is only so much gas tax. We don't pay gas tax for cycling, so
> your 6% modal share argument is neat, but it leaves out the funding
> source. It also begs the counter argument of "why do we motorists have
> to pay for bicycle infrastructure -- let the bicyclists pay for that"
> -- which I hear quite frequently.
The real question is why do the rest of us have to pay for motorists?
Licensing and registration fees and fuel taxes don't even come close
to covering the public costs of car and truck driving. Those who
don't drive are subsidizing drivers with their sales taxes, property
taxes, and income taxes-- not to mention increased prices from
retailers to cover the costs of parking, premises maintenance, and
liability insurance predicated by car drivers.
Chalo
AMuzi
Yeah, who needs highways? None of your food or bike parts
travel by truck, right?
Simon Lewis
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>
>> Also, local funding for capital improvements comes from gas tax.
>> There is only so much gas tax. We don't pay gas tax for cycling, so
>> your 6% modal share argument is neat, but it leaves out the funding
>> source. It also begs the counter argument of "why do we motorists have
>> to pay for bicycle infrastructure -- let the bicyclists pay for that"
>> -- which I hear quite frequently.
>
> The real question is why do the rest of us have to pay for motorists?
Because you live in a society whose main form of transport involves
roads and train tracks and ports.
Are you retarded?
> Licensing and registration fees and fuel taxes don't even come close
> to covering the public costs of car and truck driving. Those who
> don't drive are subsidizing drivers with their sales taxes, property
> taxes, and income taxes-- not to mention increased prices from
> retailers to cover the costs of parking, premises maintenance, and
> liability insurance predicated by car drivers.
Tell me, where did the steel from which your bikes are made? How did the
tyres get into the shop? etc.
>
> Chalo
Try thinking instead of whining. Extreme silly views do nothing to
better the cyclists standing.
Peter Cole
>> share, it justifies 6% of the budget. Even the most "facilitated" cities
>> in Europe have a minority of the streets "facilitated". A "facilitation"
>> with growing support is the bicycle boulevard, a normal street with
>> traffic calming and limited vehicle access. I see no reason why, in
>> addition to those changes, the pavement and cleaning couldn't be
>> maintained at a higher level on those streets. It's just a matter of
>> priority and fairness.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
> Right. I just about got killed this morning by a car travelling
> 45-55mph (posted 45mph) because I had to weave in to the road to avoid
> a newly formed pothole right here:
> http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2009/09/22/biking-on-barbur-boulevard-and-those-bridges/
> The roadway through there is now giant holes, probably 2-4" deep. I
> was already taking the lane. I've been riding this stretch of road
> for 26 years, and I have never seen it so bad and have never felt so
> imperiled. Now, we could take the $50K that it would take to fix that
> roadway and put it in to, let's say, a bike chute somewhere or
> something that will make the beach cruiser crowd feel all warm and
> fuzzy on their Saturday fun ride to the park, but frankly, that is not
> going to make actual commuting any safer in this city. The greatest
> improvement in bicycle safety will come from fixing the roads, at
> least in this city. YMMV.
Again, I' stated repeatedly that I only favor facilities for urban
settings, not places like that.
> Also, local funding for capital improvements comes from gas tax.
> There is only so much gas tax. We don't pay gas tax for cycling, so
> your 6% modal share argument is neat, but it leaves out the funding
> source. It also begs the counter argument of "why do we motorists have
> to pay for bicycle infrastructure -- let the bicyclists pay for that"
> -- which I hear quite frequently. I'd love to pay more taxes . . .
> not. Oregon is already tax hell. -- Jay Beattie.
I'm sorry, but your numbers don't add up. Maybe Portland is much
different than Seattle, but I doubt it, looking at the breakdown of OR's
fee disbursements, I'd bet that gas/mileage/license taxes pay about the
same amount in both areas, which is a small fraction of local costs.
Seattle:
http://publicola.com/2010/08/31/we-all-pay-for-the-roads/
OR DOT:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/FS/docs/HwyRev_apport/apport_fy11.pdf
Jay Beattie
> > The roadway through there is now giant holes, probably 2-4" deep. I
> > was already taking the lane. I've been riding this stretch of road
> > for 26 years, and I have never seen it so bad and have never felt so
> > imperiled. Now, we could take the $50K that it would take to fix that
> > roadway and put it in to, let's say, a bike chute somewhere or
> > something that will make the beach cruiser crowd feel all warm and
> > fuzzy on their Saturday fun ride to the park, but frankly, that is not
> > going to make actual commuting any safer in this city. The greatest
> > improvement in bicycle safety will come from fixing the roads, at
> > least in this city. YMMV.
>
> Again, I' stated repeatedly that I only favor facilities for urban
> settings, not places like that.
>
> > Also, local funding for capital improvements comes from gas tax.
> > There is only so much gas tax. We don't pay gas tax for cycling, so
> > your 6% modal share argument is neat, but it leaves out the funding
> > source. It also begs the counter argument of "why do we motorists have
> > to pay for bicycle infrastructure -- let the bicyclists pay for that"
> > -- which I hear quite frequently. I'd love to pay more taxes . . .
> > not. Oregon is already tax hell. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> I'm sorry, but your numbers don't add up. Maybe Portland is much
> different than Seattle, but I doubt it, looking at the breakdown of OR's
> fee disbursements, I'd bet that gas/mileage/license taxes pay about the
> same amount in both areas, which is a small fraction of local costs.
>
> Seattle:http://publicola.com/2010/08/31/we-all-pay-for-the-roads/
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Washington has no income tax. Washington has lower property tax.
Washington does have a sales tax, but with my spending habits, it
would account for a tiny fraction of my earned income. As for gas
tax, we just had an $.08 gallon increase, and it is still lower than
Washington, but the disparity between tax burdens in Washington and
Oregon has resulted in a whole McMansion community of Oregon ex pats
on the north bank of the Columbia river. It is a joke around here.
Then the Washingtonians come in to Portland and buy big ticket items
with no sales tax and don't pay any use tax, although that is a
violation of law (which rarely gets enforced). I have only myself to
blame for not working in Vancouver. -- Jay Beattie.
Peter Cole
Fuel taxes in the US are much too low to be fair, they don't even pay
for 1/2 the highway costs at the federal level. People want to drive,
they just don't want to pay for it. Keep rolling back taxes & we'll have
the infrastructure of Bulgaria.
Peter Cole
You're changing the subject. The question was how much of the road costs
was paid out of gas (& related) taxes.
Jay Beattie
Interestingly, in the golden moment of cycling (that year or two after
the invention of the safety bike and before the introduction of the
car), Portland taxed bicyclists for infrastructure:
"In 1897 came a path from Union Avenue to Woodlawn. In 1899 the United
Wheelmen's Association prevailed on Multnomah County to levy a $1.25
tax on each bicycle. It produced $15,000 its first year, the 1899
article said, and resulted in numerous bike paths throughout the city
and county.
"In 1901 the county collected $5,000 in bicycle taxes," Notson said.
"Soon afterward the bicycle tax was declared unconstitutional."
Here's the summary from the case holding it unconstitutional -- note
that the plaintiff's bike had been seized by the tax collector:
"This is an action to recover the possession of a bicycle, or the sum
of $10 as its value, in case possession thereof cannot be had, and the
further sum of $5 damages for its alleged unlawful seizure and
detention. The facts are that the defendant, as sheriff of Multnomah
county, appointed one J.W. Johnson as bicycle tax collector therein,
who on June 22, 1900, by reason of the plaintiff's failure to pay a
special tax of $1.25 levied upon all bicycles used in said county,
seized plaintiff's bicycle, and refused to surrender it, except upon
the payment of said tax, and the further sum of $1 as a fine for
having neglected to pay the same. The complaint is in the usual form,
and also alleges that the act of the legislative assembly under which
such seizure was made is violative of certain provisions of the
constitution, particularly enumerating them. A demurrer to the
complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action, having been overruled, and the defendant
declining to plead further, judgment was given as demanded, and the
defendant appeals."
The tax was declared unconstitutional for some arcane and funny
reasons dealing with the unfairness of a flat tax on bicycles of
different values and the fact that it was double taxation. Back then,
county residents had to pay ad valorem taxes on all personal and real
property, so the additional tax amounted to double taxation for the
same property. It would have been cool being the "bicycle tax
collector, Multnomah County."-- Jay Beattie.
Jay Beattie
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Washington has no income tax. Washington has lower property tax.
> > Washington does have a sales tax, but with my spending habits, it
> > would account for a tiny fraction of my earned income. As for gas
> > tax, we just had an $.08 gallon increase, and it is still lower than
> > Washington, but the disparity between tax burdens in Washington and
> > Oregon has resulted in a whole McMansion community of Oregon ex pats
> > on the north bank of the Columbia river. It is a joke around here.
> > Then the Washingtonians come in to Portland and buy big ticket items
> > with no sales tax and don't pay any use tax, although that is a
> > violation of law (which rarely gets enforced). I have only myself to
> > blame for not working in Vancouver. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> You're changing the subject. The question was how much of the road costs
Well, that's easy. All of it. All local road construction comes out
of gas, weight mile, registration -- car taxes (except where there is
a federal share, which in turn is usually paid out of federal gas tax
dollars). Local road maintenance is paid with a mixture of state and
local car-taxes and local general funds, but those general funds may
be related to car-activities like parking revenue. It's hard to tell
what portion of general funds allocated to road maintenance are from
other city funds (licenses, permits, etc.). For the most part, in
Oregon, the cars pay for the roads, at least most of the direct costs.
-- Jay Beattie.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> Right. I just about got killed this morning by a car travelling
> 45-55mph (posted 45mph) because I had to weave in to the road to avoid
> a newly formed pothole right here:
> http://www.bta4bikes.org/btablog/2009/09/22/biking-on-barbur-boulevard-and-those-bridges/
> The roadway through there is now giant holes, probably 2-4" deep. I
> was already taking the lane. I've been riding this stretch of road
> for 26 years, and I have never seen it so bad and have never felt so
> imperiled. Now, we could take the $50K that it would take to fix that
> roadway and put it in to, let's say, a bike chute somewhere or
> something that will make the beach cruiser crowd feel all warm and
> fuzzy on their Saturday fun ride to the park, but frankly, that is not
> going to make actual commuting any safer in this city. The greatest
> improvement in bicycle safety will come from fixing the roads, at
Or we could give a billionaire a $50K tax break, so he has a month's
payment on his private jet, mansion, or yacht.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Or the infrastructure of Colombia. With the equivalents of AUC death
squads [1] and FARC guerrillas.
[1] Hello Xe (né Blackwater).
Peter Cole
If you can decipher PBOT's budget and untangle the various contributions
from state, federal and local sources, you're a better man than I. I
find it difficult to believe that Portland has a more equitable funding
arrangement than Seattle despite its lower gas taxes, but I think, given
the information in the public domain, that's impossible to demonstrate.
Anyway, on to potholes. It seems that PBOT budgets about $60M, or about
20% on total maintenance. While it would be true that every dollar spent
on bike facilities comes out of PBOT budget, it should only be bike
facility maintenance out of total maintenance budget. You're comparing
apples to oranges to say that a bike chute comes out of the patching
pothole budget, so what's the "maintenance ratio"?
Portland and Oregon may be unique in funding 100% of road expenses
through road-specific taxes. The national rate is 60-80%, depending on
who you quote. Maybe that's why, if it is true, your roads are in such a
crappy state, since your fees seem average, perhaps you just don't steal
enough from the general funds. I don't know.
In any case, the above only considers direct costs. Indirect costs,
particularly in urban areas can swamp those. As a single example, I'd
use congestion costs. I cited an analysis earlier that estimated the
additional cost (to other motorists) of adding a single vehicle crossing
Manhattan at peak times at $160. Now, Portland isn't Manhattan, but the
congestion costs are significant. From the Texas Transportation
Institute, http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion_data/tables/portl.pdf
, you've got about 1M peak travelers, most in cars, with about a 50/50
highway/arterial split, and an estimated cost of $830 per year per
commuter, just from congestion. Gas tax revenues (state) amount to about
$15-20 for the excess burned.
Congestion costs are just one of the indirect costs, others would
include things like environmental costs, health costs and additional
public service costs (police, fire, etc.) not normally captured in DOT
budgets.
The reason that so many urban administrations are as supportive of
cycling initiatives as they are isn't due to some starry-eyed concern
for the planet as the hostile OP-Eds would make out, but to reduce the
"congestion tax" paid every day by motorists. Urban congestion costs in
particular can't be fixed by adding more capacity, even if the money was
available for it. Switching from cars to bikes isn't a one for one
reduction in congestion, since bikes have a congestion cost too, but it
makes a significant contribution even after those costs are accounted
for. It is simply a way to cheaply squeeze more capacity out of a finite
resource.
Motorists, if they had any sense, should be thankful for every cyclist
they see, it is truly "one less car". To view cycling infrastructure
expenditures as coming out of the "pothole filling" budget is a
distortion of reality, especially unfair since bikes aren't creating
potholes, and as you point out, suffer worse consequences from them.
If Portland is getting 6% mode share, that's 6% off the congestion bill,
or roughly $50M/yr. That fills a lot of potholes even after the bike
chutes are deducted. If you want better streets you should be looking
for new revenue, not bitching about "waste" in bike facilities. Just on
congestion reduction alone, bicycles aren't a cost, but a cost reducer.
Jay Beattie
I'll bitch about any waste of public funds. We have been attempting to
reduce traffic in PDX by installing mass transit -- streetcars,
trains, buses -- even aerial trams. http://www.flickr.com/photos/35614822@N08/3350410101/
The town looks like the set piece in the department store window of "A
Christmas Story." All we need is a monorail. That has put a tiny dent
in traffic congestion (and a huge dent in the budget, notwithstanding
federal matching). The problem is that all this infrastructure --
like special bicycle lanes and bicycle boulevards -- only goes from
point A to point B, and most people live at point C or beyond. Another
problem is weather and terrain. Although it is much more balmy than
Boston, a lot of people just don't want to get wet. The only way to
get those people on bikes would be to put them in tubes:
http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/11/23/commuter_cycling_tube_elevated/
My main gripe is the assumption that "if you build it, they will come"
-- which I think is true only to a degree. I don't think there has
been much studying to see whether more complicated and expensive
infrastructure would draw new riders or would simply give the
entrenched an arguably nicer place to ride. BTW, I don't believe half
the people who say "gee, if it weren't so dangerous on the roads, and
if I had a special Habitrail bicycle facility, I would ride my bike."
Most of the people who tell me that are scarfing crumb cakes in the
elevator and wouldn't even make the effort to walk to a bus stop let
alone ride their bikes to work. They like the speed and ease of
driving. People lie on those surveys, IMO. -- Jay Beattie.
Chalo
>
> Chalo writes:
> >
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, local funding for capital improvements comes from gas tax.
> >> There is only so much gas tax. We don't pay gas tax for cycling, so
> >> your 6% modal share argument is neat, but it leaves out the funding
> >> source. It also begs the counter argument of "why do we motorists have
> >> to pay for bicycle infrastructure -- let the bicyclists pay for that"
> >> -- which I hear quite frequently.
> >
> > The real question is why do the rest of us have to pay for motorists?
>
> Because you live in a society whose main form of transport involves
> roads and train tracks and ports.
There is negligible public subsidy for rail and water transport in the
USA, both of which are expected to pay their own way. (Amtrak is an
exception, which seems to have been kept alive but completely broken
to prevent the appearance of viable passenger rail.)
Only highway transport and public transit are heavily subsidized
here. And of these two, only highways are completely open to
exploitation by commercial interests, basically funding businesses
that heavily use highways at the expense of businesses that don't.
Likewise, the heavy public subsidy for roads and highways subsidizes
profligate car drivers (e.g. suburbanites and exurbanites) at the
expense of those who drive little or not at all.
> Are you retarded?
I don't think so. Are you? Socially, perhaps?
> > Licensing and registration fees and fuel taxes don't even come close
> > to covering the public costs of car and truck driving.
>
> Tell me, where did the steel from which your bikes are made? How did the
> tyres get into the shop? etc.
My shop's merchandise doesn't know whether it came in by road, rail,
barge, helicopter, mule, balloon, or molecular transporter. But only
one of the aforementioned modes gets free support on the public dime.
That's not fair, and it accounts for the deranged misallocation of
resources towards roads and automotive transport here.
Chalo
Peter Cole
I wouldn't call a 30-35% "dent" exactly small:
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/01/portland-a-challenging-chart.html
In any case, I was merely rebutting your pothole vs. bike lanes
argument, not defending Portland's overall transit plan.
> The problem is that all this infrastructure --
> like special bicycle lanes and bicycle boulevards -- only goes from
> point A to point B, and most people live at point C or beyond.
Also true for highways. For many urban destinations, cars don't get you
"from A to B", either.
> Another
> problem is weather and terrain. Although it is much more balmy than
> Boston, a lot of people just don't want to get wet. The only way to
> get those people on bikes would be to put them in tubes:
> http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/11/23/commuter_cycling_tube_elevated/
Sure, but 6% is nothing to sneeze at, even during cold season. There are
many fair weather riders, my wife being one, but the ability of being
able to ride a bike 2/3's of the time (dry, not too cold or dark), led
her to go car-free for commuting this year for the first time (mass
transit for off days).
> My main gripe is the assumption that "if you build it, they will come"
> -- which I think is true only to a degree. I don't think there has
> been much studying to see whether more complicated and expensive
> infrastructure would draw new riders or would simply give the
> entrenched an arguably nicer place to ride.
And, from my experience, cause occasional riders to ride more
frequently, and change habits over time, particularly as auto commutes
get more unpleasant and expensive. There have been some studies though,
and the "field of dreams" model seems to hold up.
You can argue about whether you need to spend 6% of budget to get 6%
share, or merely whether it's just fair to spend 6% to support the 6%
share, but until you spend over the (long-term projected) share
fraction, I don't think you can call it unfair or have anything to gripe
about. The point I was trying to make (apparently unsuccessfully) was
that cyclists "pay their own way" and more, not from direct collection
of revenue but by reducing congestion costs, which are borne by all
motorists, whether they're aware or not. It's as real a cost as a gas tax.
> BTW, I don't believe half
> the people who say "gee, if it weren't so dangerous on the roads, and
> if I had a special Habitrail bicycle facility, I would ride my bike."
> Most of the people who tell me that are scarfing crumb cakes in the
> elevator and wouldn't even make the effort to walk to a bus stop let
> alone ride their bikes to work. They like the speed and ease of
> driving. People lie on those surveys, IMO. -- Jay Beattie.
Much of the change is long-term. Habits change slowly (except in various
crises). Durable infrastructure takes the long view, encouraging the
development of work and living space development to areas served. We
bought our house ~30 years ago with an eye towards transit options,
including proximity to a major bike path. Although neither of us have
used it as a commuter, we've used it plenty for a variety of other
destinations and purposes. Highways work the same way. I'm old enough to
have seen a life cycle or two in the area. It took many years to go from
opening day scant traffic to rush hour gridlock.
A bike can get me door to door better than anything else in the city.
Unless you're going to a venue with attached parking (for which you'll
pay a premium), you've usually got a schlep from wherever you've managed
to stash the car. If you want to hit multiple destinations, it's lather,
rinse, repeat. Bike facilities typically don't get me from door to door,
but neither does the highway, both just shorten, or otherwise make the
trip more practical and/or enjoyable -- an important distinction when I
am weighing options.
I don't have a crystal ball. I can't predict how much mode share bikes
will get in US cities 10-20 years from now, but it does make sense to at
least pay as you go for the time being, and most places are a long way
from doing that.
russell...@yahoo.com
about 8 feet wide. These are usually on abandoned railroad tracks. A
few others weave through the town hear and there. These are great for
getting in and out of town, riding long loops (about 25-50 miles), and
somewhat useful for commuting. Only somewhat useful for commuting due
to the paths not going exactly where you want to go. So you sometimes
can take the path part of the way and then switch to streets. During
the winter months the city sometimes runs a plow along the paths to
clear snow. Not as regularly as the streets though. During summer
the paths frequently flood and remain in disrepair for a long time.
And after wind storms there are lots of branches or trees on the
trail. These eventually get cleared by the city (trees falling over
the trail), or users who stop to toss branches off the trail. All in
all the trails add a lot to the city. We frequently use the trails
for rides. Frequently getting off the trails when clear of town and
continuing the ride on county roads.
Frank Krygowski
> BTW, I don't believe half
> the people who say "gee, if it weren't so dangerous on the roads, and
> if I had a special Habitrail bicycle facility, I would ride my bike."
> Most of the people who tell me that are scarfing crumb cakes in the
> elevator and wouldn't even make the effort to walk to a bus stop let
> alone ride their bikes to work. They like the speed and ease of
> driving. People lie on those surveys, IMO.
In support of that: Just half an hour ago I was in a conversation
with a couple friends (also cyclists) and we were trading "Why
wouldn't they walk?" stories.
A) The guy I saw who walked out the front door of his condo, got into
his car, backed it 40 feet down the drive to the mailbox, got out to
get mail, drove back up and went back in the house. Sunny morning. I
witnessed that.
B) "I'll drive you to the mall." From the co-worker of one friend's
son. This was from a store directly across the street from the mall.
Because of the mall parking, the walk was about 300 yards. (The son
refused and walked.)
C) The woman who volunteered with my wife at the middle school, who
jumped into her car to get to the pharmacy one block away. My wife
said, incredulously, "You're going to drive?" The woman said "Oh, I
know... I should walk, but I just don't want to."
I could give many more examples, but I'll stop there.
Really, walkers are so rare around here (despite the pedestrian-
friendly nature of our village) that I joke when I see one. "That
must be some kind of foreigner!"
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> Sure, but 6% is nothing to sneeze at, even during cold season.
FWIW, I've been pretty skeptical of the 6% claim for Portland. When
I've been there, it's seemed extremely unlikely that 6% of the people
in traffic were on bikes.
Now I see the source: People were surveyed and asked "What mode of
travel do you _usually_ use to get to work?" (Emphasis mine.)
Even if there is no inflation of the percent cycling (due to guilt
about driving, or just desire to identify with a currently popular
campaign), 6% who "usually" bike does not equate to 6% on bikes on any
given day. Some portion of that 6% - probably a large one - will be
in a car if it's crappy weather, if they'll stay too late at work, if
they need to make out-of-the-way stops on the way home, etc.
Furthermore, the margin for error on that 6% claim is listed as +/-
1.7%. That's nearly +/-30% error. That's huge.
I think Portland needs a much better way to evaluate the percentage of
bike commuting. But I'm sure Portland isn't going to look for one.
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
> On Mar 15, 1:21 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, but 6% is nothing to sneeze at, even during cold season.
>
> FWIW, I've been pretty skeptical of the 6% claim for Portland. When
> I've been there, it's seemed extremely unlikely that 6% of the people
> in traffic were on bikes.
>
> Now I see the source: People were surveyed and asked "What mode of
> travel do you _usually_ use to get to work?" (Emphasis mine.)
Sorry, that isn't the source, Portland has had annual bike counts for
many years. In 2010, they counted at more than 150 locations:
http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=327783&c=44671
>
> Even if there is no inflation of the percent cycling (due to guilt
> about driving, or just desire to identify with a currently popular
> campaign), 6% who "usually" bike does not equate to 6% on bikes on any
> given day. Some portion of that 6% - probably a large one - will be
> in a car if it's crappy weather, if they'll stay too late at work, if
> they need to make out-of-the-way stops on the way home, etc.
>
> Furthermore, the margin for error on that 6% claim is listed as +/-
> 1.7%. That's nearly +/-30% error. That's huge.
>
> I think Portland needs a much better way to evaluate the percentage of
> bike commuting. But I'm sure Portland isn't going to look for one.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Yes, and you probably think Denmark and the Netherlands make up their
numbers, too.
James
> On 3/11/2011 12:24 AM, James Steward wrote:
>> http://www.bv.com.au/general/bikes-and-riding/10218/
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> JS.
>
> DD A NN N GGGG EEEEEE RRRRR !!
> D DD A A N N N G G E R R !!
> D D A A N N N G E R R !!
> D D A A N N N G GGG EEEE RRRRR !!
> D D AAAAAAAAA N N N G G G E R R !!
> D DD A A N N N G G E R R
> DD A A N NN GGGG EEEEEE R R !!
>
>
>
> DD A NN N GGGG EEEEEE RRRRR !!
> D DD A A N N N G G E R R !!
> D D A A N N N G E R R !!
> D D A A N N N G GGG EEEE RRRRR !!
> D D AAAAAAAAA N N N G G G E R R !!
> D DD A A N N N G G E R R
> DD A A N NN GGGG EEEEEE R R !!
>
Nice ASCII art, Frank, a.k.a. Tom ;-)
JS.
Frank Krygowski
> On 3/15/2011 4:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 1:21 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Sure, but 6% is nothing to sneeze at, even during cold season.
>
> > FWIW, I've been pretty skeptical of the 6% claim for Portland. When
> > I've been there, it's seemed extremely unlikely that 6% of the people
> > in traffic were on bikes.
>
> > Now I see the source: People were surveyed and asked "What mode of
> > travel do you _usually_ use to get to work?" (Emphasis mine.)
>
> Sorry, that isn't the source, Portland has had annual bike counts for
> many years. In 2010, they counted at more than 150 locations:
>
> http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=327783&c=44671
Those are trend counts of bikes at various locations. Can you show me
where those are used to compute 6% commuting by bike? I don't see it
there.
I made my statements based on the document you referenced earlier,
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/01/portland-a-challenging-chart.html
In that document, just below the first chart (Journey To Work Mode
Share) it says "Since 1997, the City of Portland's annual survey has
been asking people who work outside the home what their primary means
of getting to work. The answers are in this chart. (The margin for
error in 2009 was about +/- 1.7%, sample size was 3,194. Links to the
sources are in small print at the end of this post.)"
That survey seems to be the source of the 6% claim.
Seriously: I've seen this sort of scene on the Hawthorne Bridge (one
of the ones they tout):
http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/photo/hawthbridgejpg-151e82d85169ad49_large.jpg
But I don't see enough of that to make up for scenes like this:
http://cms.ukintpress.com/UserFiles/Portland-OR-rush-hour.jpg
or
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/02/medium_portland-traffic.jpg.jpeg
And there are _tremendous_ numbers of cars on those freeways.
Frankly, I doubt even the surface streets hit 6% bicyclists.
Also, the article that last was taken from talks about the large
number of Washingtonians commuting to Portland. It's safe to say
almost none of those arrive by bike. It makes me wonder who, exactly,
was surveyed to get the "6%" result. Was it just residents of
Portland? If so, that would be another serious distortion of the
commute modal share. It would be ignoring the huge numbers of
commuters not only from Washington, but from the surrounding suburbs.
And BTW: The document you cite is the one that contains the orange
"Indexed Bicycle Crash Rate (Trend Line)" which is astonishingly
linear - and without explanation.
Yes, I'm familiar with linear regression - but obviously, the
implication is that by 2013, that "trend line" will hit zero, meaning
there will be no more bicycle crashes in Portland! Oh, happy day!
But... um, is that honest? Could we not fit a more representative
curve, like a second order polynomial?
> > Even if there is no inflation of the percent cycling (due to guilt
> > about driving, or just desire to identify with a currently popular
> > campaign), 6% who "usually" bike does not equate to 6% on bikes on any
> > given day. Some portion of that 6% - probably a large one - will be
> > in a car if it's crappy weather, if they'll stay too late at work, if
> > they need to make out-of-the-way stops on the way home, etc.
>
> > Furthermore, the margin for error on that 6% claim is listed as +/-
> > 1.7%. That's nearly +/-30% error. That's huge.
>
> > I think Portland needs a much better way to evaluate the percentage of
> > bike commuting. But I'm sure Portland isn't going to look for one.
>
> Yes, and you probably think Denmark and the Netherlands make up their
> numbers, too.
I don't know how those countries get their figures, so I can't say.
They may be honest.
Have you ever seen questionable results from other polls - say, "push
polls" designed to promote a certain candidate or issue? I have.
- Frank Krygowski
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
> There is negligible public subsidy for rail and water transport in the
Barge transportation is not subsidized by the dredging and 27 lock and
dams on the Mississippi (not to mention other rivers) under the
jurisdiction of USACE?
Jay Beattie
Any time I see the counters, I ride by like six times.
The "if you build it they will come" does apply to the Steel Bridge
which, according to the PDOT link, is seeing a larger share of
bicylists in the last 10 years since its retrofit. That bridge had a
separate bicycle facility installed on the lower deck that connects
the eastside and westside esplanades. The numbers could include a fair
number of tourists.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/luton/879476720/in/photostream/ -- Jay
Beattie.
Dan O
<snip>
>
> Also, the article that last was taken from talks about the large
> number of Washingtonians commuting to Portland. It's safe to say
> almost none of those arrive by bike.
>
http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/Memorandums/Pedestrian_Bicycle_ForecastingMemo.pdf
<snip>
Peter Cole
That's what you have to base your predictions, a couple of pictures of
cars & trucks?
>
> Also, the article that last was taken from talks about the large
> number of Washingtonians commuting to Portland. It's safe to say
> almost none of those arrive by bike. It makes me wonder who, exactly,
> was surveyed to get the "6%" result. Was it just residents of
> Portland? If so, that would be another serious distortion of the
> commute modal share. It would be ignoring the huge numbers of
> commuters not only from Washington, but from the surrounding suburbs.
>
> And BTW: The document you cite is the one that contains the orange
> "Indexed Bicycle Crash Rate (Trend Line)" which is astonishingly
> linear - and without explanation.
>
> Yes, I'm familiar with linear regression - but obviously, the
> implication is that by 2013, that "trend line" will hit zero, meaning
> there will be no more bicycle crashes in Portland! Oh, happy day!
>
> But... um, is that honest? Could we not fit a more representative
> curve, like a second order polynomial?
It's a "trend line", as clearly marked.
>
>>> Even if there is no inflation of the percent cycling (due to guilt
>>> about driving, or just desire to identify with a currently popular
>>> campaign), 6% who "usually" bike does not equate to 6% on bikes on any
>>> given day. Some portion of that 6% - probably a large one - will be
>>> in a car if it's crappy weather, if they'll stay too late at work, if
>>> they need to make out-of-the-way stops on the way home, etc.
>>
>>> Furthermore, the margin for error on that 6% claim is listed as +/-
>>> 1.7%. That's nearly +/-30% error. That's huge.
Did you even read the documents? You are the one making a huge error,
not Portland DOT.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> In my town we have dedicated bicycle paths. Separate blacktop lanes
> about 8 feet wide. These are usually on abandoned railroad tracks. A
> few others weave through the town hear and there. These are great for
> getting in and out of town, riding long loops (about 25-50 miles), and
> somewhat useful for commuting. Only somewhat useful for commuting due
> to the paths not going exactly where you want to go. So you sometimes
> can take the path part of the way and then switch to streets. During
> the winter months the city sometimes runs a plow along the paths to
> clear snow. Not as regularly as the streets though. During summer
> the paths frequently flood and remain in disrepair for a long time.
"Trails and portions of trails that are closed at this time include:
1. John Pat Dorrian Trail is closed until further notice due to
construction and temporary flood control measures in place since the
June 2008 flooding. Please follow detour signs to find way around closure.
2. McHenry Park Trail closed from Neal Smith to McHenry Park.
3. Neal Smith Trail is closed south of Inter-Urban Trail to Saylor Road.
4. Gay Lea Wilson is closed from Williams Street to Easton Boulevard.
5. Gay Lea Wilson Trail is closed between Hubbell Avenue and East
Aurora Avenue due to Wastewater Reclamation construction project."
> And after wind storms there are lots of branches or trees on the
> trail. These eventually get cleared by the city (trees falling over
> the trail), or users who stop to toss branches off the trail. All in
> all the trails add a lot to the city. We frequently use the trails
> for rides. Frequently getting off the trails when clear of town and
> continuing the ride on county roads.
" Trail Safety & Etiquette
* Show courtesy to other trail users
* Always wear a helmet if bicycling
* Share the trail and keep to the right, except to pass
* When passing, alert other trail users and use caution
* Respect the trail environment and neighboring land
* Obey all trail signs and move to the side when taking in a scenic
view
* Keep dogs on a leash at all times; remove pet feces from trails
* Travel with a buddy in case of"
The last item end without telling us what we should be afraid of.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
I had to deal with rush hour congestion today. There were five (5)
vehicles ahead of me waiting in line at a red light.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> I'll bitch about any waste of public funds. We have been attempting to
> reduce traffic in PDX by installing mass transit -- streetcars,
> The town looks like the set piece in the department store window of "A
See <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_yLodI1CQ>.
Chalo
>
> Chalo wrote:
> > [...]
> > There is negligible public subsidy for rail and water transport in the
> > USA, both of which are expected to pay their own way.[...]
>
> Barge transportation is not subsidized by the dredging and 27 lock and
> dams on the Mississippi (not to mention other rivers) under the
> jurisdiction of USACE?
Negligible is certainly in the eye of the beholder, but how much do
you think no-fee dredging and lockage costs taxpayers per ton of goods
transported, compared to roads and highways? I'm thinking not very
much.
Railroads get some publicly subsidized road crossings, bridges,
stations, and the like, but it's still basically a fee-for-service
game. Not like automotive roadways,.
Chalo
Peter Cole
If we all moved to Iowa, where would they put the pigs?
Duane Hebert
If we all moved to Iowa, Tom would have to move to Boston.
Jay Beattie
Well, except for state and federal gas tax, vehicle registration,
weight-mile tax, local development fees, parking fees and some other
motor vehicle specific taxes and charges. The "subsidy" is only in the
general fund contributions, and they are hard to calculate. There are
indirect costs, but there are also indirect beneifits including
reduced cost of goods, efficient movement of equipment including
ambulance and fire, etc., etc.
The railroads were given a huge chunk of the United states over a
century ago. It all depends on how you view subsidies. I agree,
though, that far too much cargo moves on roads and that we should
increase rail transportation, but reliability and speed are so low,
most shippers use truck transportation. -- Jay Beattie.
Frank Krygowski
> On 3/15/2011 7:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 15, 5:06 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On 3/15/2011 4:24 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 15, 1:21 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sure, but 6% is nothing to sneeze at, even during cold season.
>
> >>> FWIW, I've been pretty skeptical of the 6% claim for Portland. When
> >>> I've been there, it's seemed extremely unlikely that 6% of the people
> >>> in traffic were on bikes.
>
> >>> Now I see the source: People were surveyed and asked "What mode of
> >>> travel do you _usually_ use to get to work?" (Emphasis mine.)
>
> >> Sorry, that isn't the source, Portland has had annual bike counts for
> >> many years. In 2010, they counted at more than 150 locations:
>
> >>http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=327783&c=44671
>
> > Those are trend counts of bikes at various locations. Can you show me
> > where those are used to compute 6% commuting by bike? I don't see it
> > there.
So again, Peter: Can you show me where your source documents the 6%
bike modal share? You skipped that, apparently.
> > I made my statements based on the document you referenced earlier,
> >http://www.humantransit.org/2010/01/portland-a-challenging-chart.html
>
> > In that document, just below the first chart (Journey To Work Mode
> > Share) it says "Since 1997, the City of Portland's annual survey has
> > been asking people who work outside the home what their primary means
> > of getting to work. The answers are in this chart. (The margin for
> > error in 2009 was about +/- 1.7%, sample size was 3,194. Links to the
> > sources are in small print at the end of this post.)"
>
> > That survey seems to be the source of the 6% claim.
>
> > Seriously: I've seen this sort of scene on the Hawthorne Bridge (one
> > of the ones they tout):
> >http://media.oregonlive.com/portland_impact/photo/hawthbridgejpg-151e...
>
> > But I don't see enough of that to make up for scenes like this:
> >http://cms.ukintpress.com/UserFiles/Portland-OR-rush-hour.jpg
> > or
> >http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/02/medium_portland-traffic....
> > And there are _tremendous_ numbers of cars on those freeways.
> > Frankly, I doubt even the surface streets hit 6% bicyclists.
>
> That's what you have to base your predictions, a couple of pictures of
> cars & trucks?
The pictures were just illustrations of what I've seen in Portland,
Peter. My daughter used to live there. I've been there many times,
and still know people in the area. I still visit occasionally.
I'm most familiar with the highways east and west out of downtown, and
with the city's NE and NW areas. Yes, you see a lot of bikes, but the
number of bumper-to-bumper cars is enormous. Based on what I've seen,
I'm skeptical of the 6% claim. But I'm certainly willing to examine
the evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Also, the article that last was taken from talks about the large
> > number of Washingtonians commuting to Portland. It's safe to say
> > almost none of those arrive by bike. It makes me wonder who, exactly,
> > was surveyed to get the "6%" result. Was it just residents of
> > Portland? If so, that would be another serious distortion of the
> > commute modal share. It would be ignoring the huge numbers of
> > commuters not only from Washington, but from the surrounding suburbs.
>
> > And BTW: The document you cite is the one that contains the orange
> > "Indexed Bicycle Crash Rate (Trend Line)" which is astonishingly
> > linear - and without explanation.
>
> > Yes, I'm familiar with linear regression - but obviously, the
> > implication is that by 2013, that "trend line" will hit zero, meaning
> > there will be no more bicycle crashes in Portland! Oh, happy day!
>
> > But... um, is that honest? Could we not fit a more representative
> > curve, like a second order polynomial?
>
> It's a "trend line", as clearly marked.
Do you think there will be zero bike crashes in 2013, as the "trend"
implies?
> >>> Even if there is no inflation of the percent cycling (due to guilt
> >>> about driving, or just desire to identify with a currently popular
> >>> campaign), 6% who "usually" bike does not equate to 6% on bikes on any
> >>> given day. Some portion of that 6% - probably a large one - will be
> >>> in a car if it's crappy weather, if they'll stay too late at work, if
> >>> they need to make out-of-the-way stops on the way home, etc.
>
> >>> Furthermore, the margin for error on that 6% claim is listed as +/-
> >>> 1.7%. That's nearly +/-30% error. That's huge.
>
> Did you even read the documents? You are the one making a huge error,
> not Portland DOT.
Well, I read them quickly. Why not tell me what I missed? The 6%
claim seems to come from a "resident survey," not a "commuter
survey." (That's from Appendix C of
http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=42220&a=142289 )
and I still don't see where the bridge counts document the 6%.
If I'm wrong, about this, why not just give a citation?
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
Only a complete idiot would find that "implication". What comes after
2013, negative crashes? Does that mean broken bikes will fix themselves?
The dead will rise?
>
>>>>> Even if there is no inflation of the percent cycling (due to guilt
>>>>> about driving, or just desire to identify with a currently popular
>>>>> campaign), 6% who "usually" bike does not equate to 6% on bikes on any
>>>>> given day. Some portion of that 6% - probably a large one - will be
>>>>> in a car if it's crappy weather, if they'll stay too late at work, if
>>>>> they need to make out-of-the-way stops on the way home, etc.
>>
>>>>> Furthermore, the margin for error on that 6% claim is listed as +/-
>>>>> 1.7%. That's nearly +/-30% error. That's huge.
That's the error for the survey, not the share calculation.
>>
>> Did you even read the documents? You are the one making a huge error,
>> not Portland DOT.
>
> Well, I read them quickly. Why not tell me what I missed? The 6%
> claim seems to come from a "resident survey," not a "commuter
> survey." (That's from Appendix C of
> http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=42220&a=142289 )
> and I still don't see where the bridge counts document the 6%.
>
> If I'm wrong, about this, why not just give a citation?
How could the city possibly know how many commuters were biking in from
all points outside the city? Set up checkpoints? Why would they care?
The city is providing a service to its residents, not to the state or
the region.
Why are you so obsessed with the exact number? What difference does it
make if it's 4, 6, or 8%?
How could you possibly get a precise number? It's easy to identify
residents, but no so easy to identify non-resident workers. Commuting is
only one component of the total. You can count bikes at various
locations, but unless you count cars also, you don't have a ratio. Even
if you did count cars, every street would have a different ratio, and
street counts, for bikes or cars, don't eliminate double counting. So it
will always be an estimate, and skeptics like yourself and other
conservatives will never be happy.
You've apparently got an axe to grind, I have no idea why, but it's
probably related to a personal disappointment that enhanced facilities
in Portland have been so successful in increasing cycling, without a
decline in safety, counter to your predictions. You'll just have to get
over it.
Jay Beattie
Hold on. We don't know if the increase was due to enhanced facilities
or gas prices or license revocations following DWB convictions
(driving while Bohemian). I think you would have to talk to the new
riders and find out why they started riding and whether it had
anything to do with a new bike chute on SW Broadway or a separate bike
path in North Portland, etc. I know that certain facilities do
attract riders like the paths up and down the banks of the Willamette
and the Springwater Corridor and some of the bike boulevards, but what
number of those riders are recreational versus commuters -- and how
many would ride anyway, would be hard to ferret out. Sure, its nice to
have a special place to ride because we are God's chosen people, but
we have to engage in a lot of speculation to say that a particular
facility or group of facilities increased meaningful ridership
(meaningful = bike in lieu of car. unmeaningful= driving bike on roof
of car to parking lot and doing loops on nice trail). It think getting
this question answered would be helpful in deciding what
infrastructure really works rather than guessing or letting Alta or
some other company dictate the choice. -- Jay Beattie.
SMS
> You've apparently got an axe to grind, I have no idea why, but it's
> probably related to a personal disappointment that enhanced facilities
> in Portland have been so successful in increasing cycling, without a
> decline in safety, counter to your predictions. You'll just have to get
> over it.
Enhanced facilities always increase cycling. There are those that will
cycle no matter how poor or non-existent the facilities, and those that
will begin cycling only when facilities that serve the areas they need
to get to are completed.
In my area, as soon as an underpass under 101 was completed near Intel,
bicycle commuting in that area went way up because the existing 101
crossings were very bicycle unfriendly, with cyclists veering across
uncontrolled freeway on and off ramps
<http://i56.tinypic.com/zjyvx5.jpg>.
A new bicycle bridge in my city, <http://i54.tinypic.com/jhzlg6.jpg>
resulted in a lot more bicycle commuting as well, even though the next
nearest freeway crossing was not terrible dangerous (no entrances or
exits) it was still a very busy street. The new bridge made it easy to
get to a very popular multi-use trail that went all the way to a major
industrial park where companies like Google are headquartered.
Seemingly minor improvements to facilities can have a big impact on
cycling rates. Measuring the effect on accidents is difficult though
because the new facilities invariably increase cycling rates, and those
that were cycling before those facilities came into existence were the
more experienced and dedicated cyclists.
There's an interesting study out of Montreal on this subject:
<http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Bike+paths+reduce+injuries+study/4255360/story.html>.
As to our friend, I'm sure you're well aware that he does not believe in
any fact-based study that does not jive with his pre-conceived notion of
the way he would like the world to be. His logic-free and fact-free
diatribes on the subjects of bicycle facilities, bicycle lighting, and
helmets, are adequate proof of this.
Peter Cole
Network theory says the value of a network goes up with the number of
connected elements. Where the cost of each addition is the same (like
social networks), it's a no-brainer, more is better. Where, as in this
case, the costs are unequal, it's a judgment call -- typical for road,
rail, water, sewer, phone, etc., etc. I agree that who is making those
calls is important, I have no idea who that is in Portland. From what I
gather, it's not unusual for city administrations to hire consultants to
gather data and make recommendations in this kind of situation. It's
pretty common in private enterprise, too.
James
> On 3/16/2011 12:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Well, I read them quickly. Why not tell me what I missed? The 6%
>> claim seems to come from a "resident survey," not a "commuter
>> survey." (That's from Appendix C of
>> http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=42220&a=142289 )
>> and I still don't see where the bridge counts document the 6%.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, about this, why not just give a citation?
>
> How could the city possibly know how many commuters were biking in from
> all points outside the city? Set up checkpoints? Why would they care?
> The city is providing a service to its residents, not to the state or
> the region.
>
> Why are you so obsessed with the exact number? What difference does it
> make if it's 4, 6, or 8%?
>
> How could you possibly get a precise number?
Any old number is a good enough number for Frank, when it comes to miles
ridden in a miles per fatality study result, but apparently not this.
Strange.
JS.
russell...@yahoo.com
I don't think railroads are a very good example to use in your
argument. Railroads are highly subsidized. Just not in the normal
manner with taxpayer dollars. Railroad rates are set by the
government. Don't know the name of the department that does it. But
there is an official rate the government sets to ship via railroad. I
suspect the department that does this is in bed with the railroad.
Railroads are GUARANTEED of making a profit, rate of return, by the
USA Government. I suspect most companies would have a smile from ear
to ear if their customers, who really have no other options, were
forced by the government to pay a rate that guarantees the business a
profit.
russell...@yahoo.com
$southslope.net"> wrote:
> On 3/15/2011 1:44 PM, russellseat...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > In my town we have dedicated bicycle paths. Separate blacktop lanes
> > about 8 feet wide. These are usually on abandoned railroad tracks. A
> > few others weave through the town hear and there. These are great for
> > getting in and out of town, riding long loops (about 25-50 miles), and
> > somewhat useful for commuting. Only somewhat useful for commuting due
> > to the paths not going exactly where you want to go. So you sometimes
> > can take the path part of the way and then switch to streets. During
> > the winter months the city sometimes runs a plow along the paths to
> > clear snow. Not as regularly as the streets though. During summer
> > the paths frequently flood and remain in disrepair for a long time.
>
> "Trails and portions of trails that are closed at this time include:
>
> 1. John Pat Dorrian Trail is closed until further notice due to
> construction and temporary flood control measures in place since the
> June 2008 flooding. Please follow detour signs to find way around closure.
> 2. McHenry Park Trail closed from Neal Smith to McHenry Park.
> 3. Neal Smith Trail is closed south of Inter-Urban Trail to Saylor Road.
> 4. Gay Lea Wilson is closed from Williams Street to Easton Boulevard.
> 5. Gay Lea Wilson Trail is closed between Hubbell Avenue and East
> Aurora Avenue due to Wastewater Reclamation construction project."
Yes there are several trails closed. Some for quite awhile now.
Several of the ones in the list above I don't even know where they are
at. That is the problem using official formal names for trails that
everyone refers to in a different way. I know where the Neal Smith
trail is. But I always call it the east side river trail. It runs up
the east side of the river. And the one on the other side is the west
side river trail and/or Johnston trail.
>
> > And after wind storms there are lots of branches or trees on the
> > trail. These eventually get cleared by the city (trees falling over
> > the trail), or users who stop to toss branches off the trail. All in
> > all the trails add a lot to the city. We frequently use the trails
> > for rides. Frequently getting off the trails when clear of town and
> > continuing the ride on county roads.
>
> " Trail Safety & Etiquette
>
> * Show courtesy to other trail users
> * Always wear a helmet if bicycling
> * Share the trail and keep to the right, except to pass
> * When passing, alert other trail users and use caution
> * Respect the trail environment and neighboring land
> * Obey all trail signs and move to the side when taking in a scenic
> view
> * Keep dogs on a leash at all times; remove pet feces from trails
> * Travel with a buddy in case of"
>
> The last item end without telling us what we should be afraid of.
Thos rules don't seem to onerous to me. Of course the one about
wearing a helmet will get the anti-helmet zeaplots up in arms.
Traveling with a buddy is probably wise due to most of the trails
being somewhat remote. If you should wreck and cannot continue, it
may be hours or days before anyone comes along to find you. And the
trail on the east edge of town along the interstate bypass had a wire
strung across it last fall. So if your buddy was going first he could
hit the wire before you did.
>
> --
> T m Sherm n - 42.435731,-83.985007
Frank Krygowski
> On 3/16/2011 12:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
> >>> And BTW: The document you cite is the one that contains the orange
> >>> "Indexed Bicycle Crash Rate (Trend Line)" which is astonishingly
> >>> linear - and without explanation.
>
> >>> Yes, I'm familiar with linear regression - but obviously, the
> >>> implication is that by 2013, that "trend line" will hit zero, meaning
> >>> there will be no more bicycle crashes in Portland! Oh, happy day!
>
> >>> But... um, is that honest? Could we not fit a more representative
> >>> curve, like a second order polynomial?
>
> >> It's a "trend line", as clearly marked.
>
> > Do you think there will be zero bike crashes in 2013, as the "trend"
> > implies?
>
> Only a complete idiot would find that "implication". What comes after
> 2013, negative crashes? Does that mean broken bikes will fix themselves?
> The dead will rise?
So we agree the trend line is grossly distorted, right?
FWIW, I took the trouble to plot the data, fitting a much more
representative 2nd order curve. The correlation is a lot better - but
it shows a greatly decreasing slope as time progresses. I'm sure
Portland's bike facility advocates would prefer their version, rather
than any hint of diminishing returns.
> >>>>> Even if there is no inflation of the percent cycling (due to guilt
> >>>>> about driving, or just desire to identify with a currently popular
> >>>>> campaign), 6% who "usually" bike does not equate to 6% on bikes on any
> >>>>> given day. Some portion of that 6% - probably a large one - will be
> >>>>> in a car if it's crappy weather, if they'll stay too late at work, if
> >>>>> they need to make out-of-the-way stops on the way home, etc.
>
> >>>>> Furthermore, the margin for error on that 6% claim is listed as +/-
> >>>>> 1.7%. That's nearly +/-30% error. That's huge.
>
> That's the error for the survey, not the share calculation.
If so, that's really not clear from this statement in the site you
linked:
"Since 1997, the City of Portland's annual survey has been asking
people who work outside the home what their primary means of getting
to work. The answers are in this chart. (The margin for error in
2009 was about +/- 1.7%....)
The chart shows about 6%, 8% and 7% for 2007, 2008 and 2009. Sounds
to me like they were specifically talking about the error in those
percentages.
Note also the paragraph a few down, where they _do_ state explicitly:
"Remember, this is (a) only residents of the City of Portland, not its
suburbs, and (b) only about the journey to work, not other journeys.
It's also (c) self-reported by citizens rather than observed
behavior."
> > Why not tell me what I missed? The 6%
> > claim seems to come from a "resident survey," not a "commuter
> > survey." (That's from Appendix C of
> >http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=42220&a=142289 )
> > and I still don't see where the bridge counts document the 6%.
>
> > If I'm wrong, about this, why not just give a citation?
>
> How could the city possibly know how many commuters were biking in from
> all points outside the city? Set up checkpoints? Why would they care?
> The city is providing a service to its residents, not to the state or
> the region.
OK, Peter, it's pretty clear now that you were flat wrong. The bridge
counts you cited had nothing to do with the supposed 6% modal share
for bikes in Portland. The 6% you've cited over and over was computed
based on a survey only of Portland residents.
Furthermore, there actually is no 6% modal share, in any realistic
sense of the word. As I said, based on my observation, the amount of
commuting done by bike in Portland is far less. You get a supposed 6%
figure _only_ if you ignore everyone commuting into Portland from any
place outside the city limits! But that's not what "modal share"
normally means.
Anyone crawling along the I-5 freeway from the north, Rt. 26 from the
west or I-84 from the east knows that ignoring those thousands and
thousands of cars is ludicrous.
> Why are you so obsessed with the exact number? What difference does it
> make if it's 4, 6, or 8%?
What you really mean is "What difference does accuracy and truth
make? Why would they matter?"
It matters because, IIRC, you've said several times that 6% is nothing
to sneeze at, or words to that effect - that if bike facilities can
produce that modal share, they're obviously worth having.
I'm happy to keep discussing whether they're worth having. But
perhaps you should discuss what they're worth if they _cannot_ produce
a real 6% modal share - because in Portland, they haven't.
> You've apparently got an axe to grind, I have no idea why...
Look, as a participant in a discussion and as a cycling advocate, I'm
just expecting good data, honest interpretation, and truth. As a
cyclists, I'm expecting competent designs without significant
drawbacks.
But what I'm getting is distorted data, pie-in-the-sky predictions and
lots of on-the-ground incompetence. Oh, and continued arguments that
"innovative" (= crazy) facilities are the only possible way to help
cycling.
From you, I'm also getting absolute refusal to admit your mistakes.
And I'm getting the notion that truth doesn't matter, accuracy doesn't
matter, hazards to individual cyclists don't matter. All that matters
is butts on bikes.
I have a low tolerance for such bullshit. Sorry.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> Enhanced facilities always increase cycling.
<sigh> Well, not always. I can give a local counterexample, a bike
lane that's so bad that I've never seen even one cyclist use it. But
I do get tired of pointing out Steve's many errors!
> In my area, as soon as an underpass under 101 was completed near Intel,
> bicycle commuting in that area went way up ...
>
> A new bicycle bridge in my city, <http://i54.tinypic.com/jhzlg6.jpg>
> resulted in a lot more bicycle commuting as well...
... And if you feel a need to push facilities, _those_ are the kind we
should be providing. When barriers or bottlenecks restrict cycling,
it makes sense to provide a solution.
I've said many times that we did similar things (but on a smaller
scale) in my village. I've said many times that there should be
bicycle (and pedestrian) access to traffic generators from adjacent
neighborhoods, rather than making cyclists take the long way around on
busy roads. Cul-de-sac streets should have paths to let cyclists
through while keeping cars contained.
But most of the facilities advocacy we see - here and elsewhere - has
nothing to do with that. It's for a paint stripe on pavement that's
already wide enough to share - or worse, for a paint stripe on
pavement that's definitely too narrow to share, stripe or no. It's
for crazy ideas like "bicycle tracks" that generate surprises for all
road users, and obstacles for people wanting to ride in a normal
manner. It's for linear parks, paid for by misuse of transportation
funds.
Why can't we spend transportation funds on really useful projects,
like the ones Steve linked to?
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
SMS obviously missed the previous post on that piece of propaganda.
Here's a repeat:
========================================
Of course it's a study that's well respected - by people who are
looking for any possible justification for segregated facilities, and/
or those who read the abstract and go no further! Lusk has been a
paint-and-path salesperson for many years, so her fans certainly feel
no need to actually examine the data and logic.
OTOH, those who have read and thought about it in more detail are much
more skeptical. Here are the bases for skepticism:
Briefly, Lusk chose parallel roads she claimed were similar, except
for bike tracks. She examined the injury data she could find, did
some very questionable mathematical adjustments based on estimates of
rider counts, and even more questionable data on car crash data, and
concluded there was about 25% less hazard in the bike tracks.
But her data on rider counts is sketchy, based on sampling in a
limited number of months plus some serious extrapolation. The use of
motorist crash data to generate fudge factors that are then applied to
bike crashes is weird at best. It's the kind of thing I'd use to
downgrade a freshman lab report.
Most damning is the idea that the streets chosen for comparison are
sufficiently similar. Those who have ridden them and those who have
used Google Maps to examine them find the idea of equivalence to be
ludicrous. Here's one traffic engineer's summary:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Brebeuf is a 1-way very narrow residential street with
parking on
both sides. Reference St Denis is 2-way with 4 narrow lanes with
much
more commercial activity. Parking lanes are wide enough to
provide a
door zone bike area. Conclusion: St Denis is not at all
comparable.
Brefeuf would be much safer for bicycling irrespective of the
cycle track.
2. Rachael Ouest is a 2-lane busy commercial street with parking
on both
sides. Reference Mont Royal is similar. The RR is 1.18, and
though it is
not statistically significant, it indicates that the cycle track
on
Rachael makes bicycling more dangerous.
3. Berri is a divided 4-lane limited access for the .8km from
Cherrier to
Maisonneuve (except for at grade crossing with Ontario). Berri
tunnels
under Sherbrooke. It is predominantly a through street.
Reference St.
Denis is 4 lanes with parking on both sides. It has a parking
lane wide
enough to act as a door zone bike area. There is considerable
commercial
activity. There are at least 7 more intersections on St. Denis
than on
Berri. These streets are not comparable. By its nature, Berri
would have
far fewer conflicts and be safer for bicycling irrespective of
the cycle
track.
4. Maisonneuve is a 1 lane 1-way 30 kph street with parking on
the side
opposite the cycle track. References St Catherine and Sherbrooke
are 2-4
lanes 2-way with parking on both sides. These streets are not
comparable. Maisonneuve would have far fewer conflicts and be
safer
irrespective of the cycle track.
5. Christophe Colomb: Pending
6. Rene Levesque is a 6 lane divided with parking in places.
Reference
Sherbrooke is 4 lanes undivided with parking in places. The
parking lane
is wide enough to provide a door zone bike area. Because Rene
Levesque
is divided and Sherbrooke has a door zone bike area, Rene
Levesque would
by its nature be safer than Sherbrooke irrespective of the cycle
track
on Rene Levesque.
See http://tinyurl.com/4snooy4
Of the 6 cycle tracks in the Montreal paper, just #2 and #5 have
reference streets that are similar in character. Those two cycle
tracks
are just as dangerous in terms of RR as their reference streets, as
shown in Table 2 of Lusk's paper.
... Near the end of the Christophe Colomb cycle track
section (3.7 km long) included a complex intersection area (Boulevard
Cremaize and Metropolitan Expressway), that likely had many MOV
collisions, while the CC reference street (2.3 km long) did not. This
would make the cycle track seem really good. The CC cycle track
section
would be more like the CC reference section if they left out that
intersection and were both 2.3 km long.
This is a way they worked to get the results they want.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also
http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/_archives/2011/2/11/4748152.html#comments
Richard Moeur is not a landscape architect. He's a professional
transportation engineer, as is the individual I quoted above (whose
name I'm not giving, since that correspondence was not public). John
Allen is a nationally known expert in cycling.
In general, and as usual, the people who are touting this study are
the landscape architects and the "save the world" sociologists. The
people doubting it are the engineers and the people who have the
background technical knowledge of mathematics, cycling and traffic
interactions.
And BTW, its numerical conclusions are opposite that of the recent
Copenhagen study. That one didn't pick two streets that it pretended
were similar; it used the exact same streets before and after the
installation of facilities like these. It found definite increases in
crashes.
Anne Lusk and the landscape architect crew don't seem to want that
article trumpeted. Go figure.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
>
> Any old number is a good enough number for Frank...
Exactly backwards, yet again, James.
I'm the one using documentation and citations to show that the
propaganda numbers are wrong. Peter is the one saying "What does it
matter if it's 4, 6 or 8%?"
- Frank Krygowski
James
Funny how you snipped what I wrote, yet again, Frank. Here, let me
remind you.
"Any old number is a good enough number for Frank, when it comes to
miles ridden in a miles per fatality study result, but apparently not this."
If you are still confused, take a deep breath and come back to it tomorrow.
JS.
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
> As to our friend, I'm sure you're well aware that he does not believe in
> any fact-based study that does not jive with his pre-conceived notion of
> the way he would like the world to be. His logic-free and fact-free
> diatribes on the subjects of bicycle facilities, bicycle lighting, and
Interesting how Scharf always projects his exact failings onto others.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
It "we" all moved to Iowa, that would spoil things.
Dan O
TLDR, but man - it's happening in Portland!
(When I suggested you move out west and educate all the motorists here
about a bicyclist's right to the road, I didn't mean come out and
*try* it; figured of course you had. I meant stick yourself out there
in front of them all - day in and day out. That is the only way
they'll be "educated" - i.e. get used to it.)
Sure most facilities are sub-optimal, and some are downright nutty,
but they're *doing* something (public education included). It's gonna
be great! Your concept of 1950's Pleasantville ain't coming back.
Peter Cole
> But what I'm getting is distorted data, pie-in-the-sky predictions and
> lots of on-the-ground incompetence. Oh, and continued arguments that
> "innovative" (= crazy) facilities are the only possible way to help
> cycling.
>
> From you, I'm also getting absolute refusal to admit your mistakes.
> And I'm getting the notion that truth doesn't matter, accuracy doesn't
> matter, hazards to individual cyclists don't matter. All that matters
> is butts on bikes.
What I'm getting is bored and irritated. You provide no information of
interest. Your tone is abusive.
> I have a low tolerance for such bullshit. Sorry.
You are an absolutist, starting from conclusion, rather than ending
there. You pretend to be an empiricist, but you have a double-standard
for proof. Good luck with that. I might as well argue with Pastor Gregory.
Frank Krygowski
> On 3/16/2011 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > But what I'm getting is distorted data, pie-in-the-sky predictions and
> > lots of on-the-ground incompetence. Oh, and continued arguments that
> > "innovative" (= crazy) facilities are the only possible way to help
> > cycling.
>
> > From you, I'm also getting absolute refusal to admit your mistakes.
> > And I'm getting the notion that truth doesn't matter, accuracy doesn't
> > matter, hazards to individual cyclists don't matter. All that matters
> > is butts on bikes.
>
> What I'm getting is bored and irritated. You provide no information of
> interest.
It's not of interest that you claimed the modal share was based on
automatic traffic counts, when it's now obvious it was based on a
survey of only citizens living in Portland?
It's not of interest that the modal share on which you based your
argument omits counting anyone entering Portland city from any suburb?
Peter, all that was very interesting to you until you were proven
thoroughly wrong. Now you're just not interested in admitting it.
> Your tone is abusive.
You can call it abusive only if you think nobody should ever be called
on their mistakes.
> You are an absolutist, starting from conclusion, rather than ending
> there.
What makes you think that? When I first heard the concept of bike
lanes and bike paths (back in the 1970s) I was as intrigued as any
newbie. It took many years and much experience and study for me to
realize they were usually useless, except that some bike trails were
nice for recreation.
Since I've learned that, I've found much more evidence and logic
corroborating my conclusion.
You seem to want me to ignore all that and pretend that oddball bike
facilities are the answer to all prayers - and, I suppose, to pretend
that 6% of people commuting in Portland really are on bicycles, and
pretend that automatic bridge counts can count all the bikes in
Portland plus tell where their riders are going.
You want me to pretend too much. I'm sticking with what I've learned,
thank you.
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
> On Mar 17, 7:56 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 3/16/2011 7:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> But what I'm getting is distorted data, pie-in-the-sky predictions and
>>> lots of on-the-ground incompetence. Oh, and continued arguments that
>>> "innovative" (= crazy) facilities are the only possible way to help
>>> cycling.
>>
>>> From you, I'm also getting absolute refusal to admit your mistakes.
>>> And I'm getting the notion that truth doesn't matter, accuracy doesn't
>>> matter, hazards to individual cyclists don't matter. All that matters
>>> is butts on bikes.
>>
>> What I'm getting is bored and irritated. You provide no information of
>> interest.
>
> It's not of interest that you claimed the modal share was based on
> automatic traffic counts, when it's now obvious it was based on a
> survey of only citizens living in Portland?
Portland uses both bike counts and surveys to estimate bicycle use.
National census data also is used to estimate bicycle use. Your
confusion comes from the issue that bike counts may include
non-residents, all other data explicitly does not. The bike counts are
used to estimate growth of bicycle traffic. Both give only estimates of
somewhat different statistics.
> It's not of interest that the modal share on which you based your
> argument omits counting anyone entering Portland city from any suburb?
As far as I know, none of the "modal share" numbers include
non-residents, of any city. I don't know how that data could be
pragmatically collected.
> Peter, all that was very interesting to you until you were proven
> thoroughly wrong. Now you're just not interested in admitting it.
My original statement was that I felt that a 6% share justified 6% of
the budget. I was referring to Portland's budget. As to share, I didn't
specify Portland traffic share, or Portland resident traffic share, or
just commuting traffic or all trip traffic. The common convention seems
to be resident commuting share.
My "argument" as such was only that it seemed reasonable to spend the
fraction of the transportation budget that cycling traffic (present and
projected) justified. It may well be that any reduction in congestion
achieved by encouraging resident bicycle use may be offset completely by
increased non-resident traffic. It may be that Portland has decided that
non-resident convenience is an equal priority. It's useless to speculate
about such things and useless to speculate about mode shares in various
traffic streams that you can't practically measure, and far outside the
scope of my original comment.
>> Your tone is abusive.
>
> You can call it abusive only if you think nobody should ever be called
> on their mistakes.
No, that would be over content. I'm specifically referring to tone, and
I'm not the only one making that criticism.
>> You are an absolutist, starting from conclusion, rather than ending
>> there.
>
> What makes you think that? When I first heard the concept of bike
> lanes and bike paths (back in the 1970s) I was as intrigued as any
> newbie. It took many years and much experience and study for me to
> realize they were usually useless, except that some bike trails were
> nice for recreation.
>
> Since I've learned that, I've found much more evidence and logic
> corroborating my conclusion.
Your open-mindedness is unimpressive. If your logic was more compelling,
perhaps you wouldn't find it necessary to resort to the tone you
frequently use.
> You seem to want me to ignore all that and pretend that oddball bike
> facilities are the answer to all prayers
No, and this typical exaggeration is an example of your tone.
> - and, I suppose, to pretend
> that 6% of people commuting in Portland really are on bicycles, and
> pretend that automatic bridge counts can count all the bikes in
> Portland plus tell where their riders are going.
The methodology of bike usage statistic collection is reasonably well
described. No one is asking you to pretend anything, and there's no
reason for you to take such a wounded tone.
> You want me to pretend too much. I'm sticking with what I've learned,
> thank you.
You have a mind like a steel trap. The characteristic of equating
innovation to insanity is evidence of deep conservatism.
Jay Beattie
Tom lives in Pleasantville. "Is this heaven? No, its Iowa."
Whenever we have these bicycle facilities arguments, I have to stop
and remind myself that people live in places other than PDX. I would
be terrified to ride in NYC -- or probably even Boston, except for up
near the Back Bay Fens -- and facilities in those cities may actually
promote cycling by serious commuters. In contrast, the arterials in
San Jose are unusually wide, and striping a lane down there might be
considered a waste of paint. In Iowa, you can ride anywhere without
fear of cars -- even on the interstates. The "need" for
infrastructure depends on a lot of things, and saying it is
unnecessary may be true for one area but not for another. -- Jay
Beattie.
Duane Hebert
>
> Tom lives in Pleasantville. "Is this heaven? No, its Iowa."
>
> Whenever we have these bicycle facilities arguments, I have to stop
> and remind myself that people live in places other than PDX. I would
> be terrified to ride in NYC -- or probably even Boston, except for up
> near the Back Bay Fens -- and facilities in those cities may actually
> promote cycling by serious commuters. In contrast, the arterials in
> San Jose are unusually wide, and striping a lane down there might be
> considered a waste of paint. In Iowa, you can ride anywhere without
> fear of cars -- even on the interstates. The "need" for
> infrastructure depends on a lot of things, and saying it is
> unnecessary may be true for one area but not for another.
+1
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> Tom lives in Pleasantville. "Is this heaven? No, its Iowa."
>
> Whenever we have these bicycle facilities arguments, I have to stop
> and remind myself that people live in places other than PDX. I would
> be terrified to ride in NYC -- or probably even Boston, except for up
> near the Back Bay Fens -- and facilities in those cities may actually
> promote cycling by serious commuters. In contrast, the arterials in
> San Jose are unusually wide, and striping a lane down there might be
> considered a waste of paint. In Iowa, you can ride anywhere without
> fear of cars -- even on the interstates. The "need" for
> infrastructure depends on a lot of things, and saying it is
> unnecessary may be true for one area but not for another. -- Jay
> Beattie.
The Iowa State Patrol will ticket you for riding a bicycle on the
Interstate.
Q. What do you call someone driving like a jerk in Iowa?
A. A visitor from Illinois [1].
[1] Chicagoland, not "Downstate".
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
> [...]
Argument is down the hall in Room 12A.
Frank Krygowski
> On 3/17/2011 1:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 7:56 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> interest.
>
> > It's not of interest that you claimed the modal share was based on
> > automatic traffic counts, when it's now obvious it was based on a
> > survey of only citizens living in Portland?
>
> Portland uses both bike counts and surveys to estimate bicycle use.
> National census data also is used to estimate bicycle use. Your
> confusion comes from the issue that bike counts may include
> non-residents, all other data explicitly does not. The bike counts are
> used to estimate growth of bicycle traffic. Both give only estimates of
> somewhat different statistics.
OK, all that's interesting, at least as possibilities. But where are
the citations? So far, you've cited two documents to prove Portland's
supposed 6% bike modal share. On further examination, both documents
did no such thing - unless you carefully redefine "modal share."
So really, how about some evidence for what you just wrote above?
Since your previous evidence seems to have proven you wrong, giving
some evidence would help your argument.
And please note, I'm open to proof of both what you say about the
multiple methods of assessing bike modal share. Just give links to
what they are, and what percents they actually computed.
> > It's not of interest that the modal share on which you based your
> > argument omits counting anyone entering Portland city from any suburb?
>
> As far as I know, none of the "modal share" numbers include
> non-residents, of any city.
Wikipedia (at least) defines modal share this way:
"Modal share, Mode split or Modal split, is a traffic / transport term
that describes the number of trips or (more common) percentage of
travelers using a particular type of transportation." From that, I'd
say it's talking about all the people traveling. So I'd assume the
bike modal share in Portland was not supposed to be limited to just
the residents of the city itself.
And it would make little sense to limit it to residents. A tiny suburb
surrounded by other contiguous suburbs might have quite a few bike
commuter residents, maybe ten percent; but it might have tens of
thousands of cars driving through. Computing modal share based on a
survey of just residents would give a completely useless number. It
would tell you nothing about the real situation on the ground.
> My original statement was that I felt that a 6% share justified 6% of
> the budget. I was referring to Portland's budget.
Nope, that doesn't work. Look at the limiting case. If 100% of the
3000 residents of my village commuted "primarily" by bike (as that
Portland survey asked) it would still not make sense to devote 100% of
the villages transportation budget only to bikes. For one thing, not
all transportation is commuting. For another, those commuting
"primarily" by bike (like I did last semester) still have to drive to
work, perhaps fairly often. But most important, there are at least
ten times as many people coming across the borders to access
businesses within or just to pass through.
> The common convention seems
> to be resident commuting share.
OK: Citation?
> >> Your tone is abusive.
>
> > You can call it abusive only if you think nobody should ever be called
> > on their mistakes.
>
> No, that would be over content. I'm specifically referring to tone, and
> I'm not the only one making that criticism.
I haven't made that complaint about you; but it's _certainly_ not
because it wasn't possible! Would you like me to just write "Tone,
Peter" when you snap at me or others?
>
> >> You are an absolutist, starting from conclusion, rather than ending
> >> there.
>
> > What makes you think that? When I first heard the concept of bike
> > lanes and bike paths (back in the 1970s) I was as intrigued as any
> > newbie. It took many years and much experience and study for me to
> > realize they were usually useless, except that some bike trails were
> > nice for recreation.
>
> > Since I've learned that, I've found much more evidence and logic
> > corroborating my conclusion.
>
> Your open-mindedness is unimpressive. If your logic was more compelling,
> perhaps you wouldn't find it necessary to resort to the tone you
> frequently use.
Let's talk facts. ISTM that on average your level of civility is no
different than mine, and your facts are weaker.
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
> On Mar 17, 2:54 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 3/17/2011 1:09 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 7:56 am, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What I'm getting is bored and irritated. You provide no information of
>>>> interest.
>>
>>> It's not of interest that you claimed the modal share was based on
>>> automatic traffic counts, when it's now obvious it was based on a
>>> survey of only citizens living in Portland?
>>
>> Portland uses both bike counts and surveys to estimate bicycle use.
>> National census data also is used to estimate bicycle use. Your
>> confusion comes from the issue that bike counts may include
>> non-residents, all other data explicitly does not. The bike counts are
>> used to estimate growth of bicycle traffic. Both give only estimates of
>> somewhat different statistics.
>
> OK, all that's interesting, at least as possibilities. But where are
> the citations? So far, you've cited two documents to prove Portland's
> supposed 6% bike modal share. On further examination, both documents
> did no such thing - unless you carefully redefine "modal share."
Modal share estimates are published all the time. As far as I know these
are all estimates of residential commute share.
The primary Portland document explicitly states that the information is
not available to compute actual share -- without clearly defining just
what that term means. It might mean total traffic.
> So really, how about some evidence for what you just wrote above?
> Since your previous evidence seems to have proven you wrong, giving
> some evidence would help your argument.
>
> And please note, I'm open to proof of both what you say about the
> multiple methods of assessing bike modal share. Just give links to
> what they are, and what percents they actually computed.
>
>>> It's not of interest that the modal share on which you based your
>>> argument omits counting anyone entering Portland city from any suburb?
>>
>> As far as I know, none of the "modal share" numbers include
>> non-residents, of any city.
>
> Wikipedia (at least) defines modal share this way:
> "Modal share, Mode split or Modal split, is a traffic / transport term
> that describes the number of trips or (more common) percentage of
> travelers using a particular type of transportation." From that, I'd
> say it's talking about all the people traveling. So I'd assume the
> bike modal share in Portland was not supposed to be limited to just
> the residents of the city itself.
I think that's obviously a bad assumption, at least for the reason that
there's no practical way of getting a "total traffic" modal share. It's
hard enough to get solid data on motor vehicle aggregate traffic. Any
numbers have to be estimates. Any jurisdiction can assume the source of
its own commute traffic, but not the destination. Aggregate inbound
urban traffic can perhaps be more accurately estimated than outbound,
but I think it's still far from precise. I don't know how you'd separate
inbound from pass-through either, but I'm not an expert.
In any case, I don't think that invalidates census/poll or bike count
data. It is useful for a city to know how its residents get around and
it's useful to compare cities with that metric and gauge the
year-to-year changes of both.
When it comes to providing an economic argument for accommodating
cyclists (or mass transit for that matter), there are a number of
issues, ranging from incremental costs to long-term objectives,
including not directly monetary, perhaps subjective, goals. "Quality of
life" concerns are particularly subjective. On the other hand,
congestion costs are real, as, to an extent, are wear & tear maintenance
issues. Lastly, I think the questions of facilities and ridership are
distinct. An economic argument can be made for facilities in proportion
to the degree they can be found to enlarge ridership, assuming a
rational apportionment of costs, but on the other hand, residents may
chose to pay for them simply because they like them.
> And it would make little sense to limit it to residents. A tiny suburb
> surrounded by other contiguous suburbs might have quite a few bike
> commuter residents, maybe ten percent; but it might have tens of
> thousands of cars driving through. Computing modal share based on a
> survey of just residents would give a completely useless number. It
> would tell you nothing about the real situation on the ground.
It depends on what "real situation" interests you. If the city is
providing facilities to encourage cycling by residents, and the
residents are paying for them, perhaps it makes sense to see how many
residents are taking advantage of those facilities. If the city is
merely trying to reduce congestion, then it may do that by other means,
and may have different levels of concern about the need to provide
alternatives for residents or non-residents.
>> My original statement was that I felt that a 6% share justified 6% of
>> the budget. I was referring to Portland's budget.
>
> Nope, that doesn't work. Look at the limiting case. If 100% of the
> 3000 residents of my village commuted "primarily" by bike (as that
> Portland survey asked) it would still not make sense to devote 100% of
> the villages transportation budget only to bikes. For one thing, not
> all transportation is commuting. For another, those commuting
> "primarily" by bike (like I did last semester) still have to drive to
> work, perhaps fairly often. But most important, there are at least
> ten times as many people coming across the borders to access
> businesses within or just to pass through.
Again, you're being an absolutist. Since cyclists wouldn't have
"door-to-door" in any realistic scenario, and roads would be necessary
in any case to provide services, obviously the 100% scenario is
impractical.
There are many reasons why a particular community, even composed of 100%
cyclists, might want to facilitate transport for non-cyclists, even
non-resident, non-cyclists. On the other hand, many dense, urban
communities are interested in reducing motor traffic from both residents
and non-residents alike. This has fostered policies which implement
things like parking reduction and increased fees for both parking and entry.
I am arguing for the principle of rational economic justification for
pro-bike policies, not trying to exactly compute predictions on a city's
transport budget.
>> The common convention seems
>> to be resident commuting share.
>
> OK: Citation?
It's census information, either conducted, as in Portland's case, by the
city, and or by the federal government.
>
>>>> Your tone is abusive.
>>
>>> You can call it abusive only if you think nobody should ever be called
>>> on their mistakes.
>>
>> No, that would be over content. I'm specifically referring to tone, and
>> I'm not the only one making that criticism.
>
> I haven't made that complaint about you; but it's _certainly_ not
> because it wasn't possible! Would you like me to just write "Tone,
> Peter" when you snap at me or others?
Sure, feel free.
>>>> You are an absolutist, starting from conclusion, rather than ending
>>>> there.
>>
>>> What makes you think that? When I first heard the concept of bike
>>> lanes and bike paths (back in the 1970s) I was as intrigued as any
>>> newbie. It took many years and much experience and study for me to
>>> realize they were usually useless, except that some bike trails were
>>> nice for recreation.
>>
>>> Since I've learned that, I've found much more evidence and logic
>>> corroborating my conclusion.
>>
>> Your open-mindedness is unimpressive. If your logic was more compelling,
>> perhaps you wouldn't find it necessary to resort to the tone you
>> frequently use.
>
> Let's talk facts. ISTM that on average your level of civility is no
> different than mine, and your facts are weaker.
Your assessment of the quality of your own facts is at least subjective
if not dubious. Your apparent belief that your factual superiority
entitles you to some degree of incivility is unfortunate.
Peter Cole
> Whenever we have these bicycle facilities arguments, I have to stop
> and remind myself that people live in places other than PDX. I would
> be terrified to ride in NYC -- or probably even Boston, except for up
> near the Back Bay Fens -- and facilities in those cities may actually
> promote cycling by serious commuters. In contrast, the arterials in
> San Jose are unusually wide, and striping a lane down there might be
> considered a waste of paint. In Iowa, you can ride anywhere without
> fear of cars -- even on the interstates. The "need" for
> infrastructure depends on a lot of things, and saying it is
> unnecessary may be true for one area but not for another. -- Jay
> Beattie.
I heartily agree. I think it's largely, although not entirely, a matter
of density. Some communities may have reasonably low density but not
many low speed roads. A wide high speed road may be perfectly practical
for cycling, but many people would find it unpleasant. The Youtube clip
you linked would be a case of that for me. I would much rather
"negotiate" continuously on the crowded streets of Boston than have
semi's roaring past me, even if they always gave me my 3'. Truth is,
most cyclists really don't like either and would prefer an alternative
-- route or facility, doesn't matter to me, just make it nice.
RobertH
> Look, as a participant in a discussion and as a cycling advocate, I'm
> just expecting good data, honest interpretation, and truth.[...]
> I have a low tolerance for such bullshit. Sorry.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Oh come on!
Interestingly, I think you really believe this about yourself.
Frank Krygowski
> On 3/17/2011 11:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 17, 2:54 pm, Peter Cole<peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> National census data also is used to estimate bicycle use. Your
> >> confusion comes from the issue that bike counts may include
> >> non-residents, all other data explicitly does not. The bike counts are
> >> used to estimate growth of bicycle traffic. Both give only estimates of
> >> somewhat different statistics.
>
> > OK, all that's interesting, at least as possibilities. But where are
>
> Modal share estimates are published all the time. As far as I know these
> are all estimates of residential commute share.
"As far as I know" isn't a citation, Peter. Again: the two citations
we've seen so far indicated you were wrong. Where are the citations
showing you're correct?
> The primary Portland document explicitly states that the information is
> not available to compute actual share -- without clearly defining just
> what that term means. It might mean total traffic.
What that means is that the supposed 6% modal share for biking in
Portland is not "actual," it's propaganda.
>
>
>
> > So really, how about some evidence for what you just wrote above?
> > Since your previous evidence seems to have proven you wrong, giving
> > some evidence would help your argument.
>
> > And please note, I'm open to proof of both what you say about the
> > multiple methods of assessing bike modal share. Just give links to
> > what they are, and what percents they actually computed.
>
> >>> It's not of interest that the modal share on which you based your
> >>> argument omits counting anyone entering Portland city from any suburb?
>
> >> As far as I know, none of the "modal share" numbers include
> >> non-residents, of any city.
>
> > Wikipedia (at least) defines modal share this way:
> > "Modal share, Mode split or Modal split, is a traffic / transport term
> > that describes the number of trips or (more common) percentage of
> > travelers using a particular type of transportation." From that, I'd
> > say it's talking about all the people traveling. So I'd assume the
> > bike modal share in Portland was not supposed to be limited to just
> > the residents of the city itself.
>
> I think that's obviously a bad assumption, at least for the reason that
> there's no practical way of getting a "total traffic" modal share.
I'm amazed by the popularity of Zen thinking, once we get deep into
discussions here! How can there be no practical way of counting
vehicles?
> It's hard enough to get solid data on motor vehicle aggregate traffic. Any
> numbers have to be estimates.
Certainly. Nobody expects perfect accuracy in any measurement. But
technology's existed for decades to do adequate traffic counts. I've
got a booklet of local traffic counts for thousands of roads and road
segments in our metro area, counts that are used constantly by traffic
engineers for planning and design purposes.
Especially in a city like Portland that's so proud of its separate
bike facilities, all that would be needed would be separate hardware
to count bikes in the bike lanes, and that technology exists too. If
Portland really wanted accurate data (instead of propaganda numbers)
it would cost little to get it.
And it may be they have it! But I'm sure it's not the 6% that you
were talking about.
Any jurisdiction can assume the source of
> its own commute traffic, but not the destination. Aggregate inbound
> urban traffic can perhaps be more accurately estimated than outbound,
> but I think it's still far from precise. I don't know how you'd separate
> inbound from pass-through either, but I'm not an expert.
>
> In any case, I don't think that invalidates census/poll or bike count
> data. It is useful for a city to know how its residents get around and
> it's useful to compare cities with that metric and gauge the
> year-to-year changes of both.
>
> When it comes to providing an economic argument for accommodating
> cyclists (or mass transit for that matter), there are a number of
> issues, ranging from incremental costs to long-term objectives,
> including not directly monetary, perhaps subjective, goals. "Quality of
> life" concerns are particularly subjective. On the other hand,
> congestion costs are real, as, to an extent, are wear & tear maintenance
> issues. Lastly, I think the questions of facilities and ridership are
> distinct. An economic argument can be made for facilities in proportion
> to the degree they can be found to enlarge ridership, assuming a
> rational apportionment of costs, but on the other hand, residents may
> chose to pay for them simply because they like them.
But all that is many times removed from your previous argument, which
was essentially that (supposed) 6% bike modal share justifies 6% of
the transportation budget going to bikes.
> >> My original statement was that I felt that a 6% share justified 6% of
> >> the budget. I was referring to Portland's budget.
>
> > Nope, that doesn't work. Look at the limiting case. If 100% of the
> > 3000 residents of my village commuted "primarily" by bike (as that
> > Portland survey asked) it would still not make sense to devote 100% of
> > the villages transportation budget only to bikes. For one thing, not
> > all transportation is commuting. For another, those commuting
> > "primarily" by bike (like I did last semester) still have to drive to
> > work, perhaps fairly often. But most important, there are at least
> > ten times as many people coming across the borders to access
> > businesses within or just to pass through.
>
> Again, you're being an absolutist. Since cyclists wouldn't have
> "door-to-door" in any realistic scenario, and roads would be necessary
> in any case to provide services, obviously the 100% scenario is
> impractical.
The proportion idea you touted is just as impractical.
> >> The common convention [definition of "modal share"] seems
> >> to be resident commuting share.
>
> > OK: Citation?
>
> It's census information, either conducted, as in Portland's case, by the
> city, and or by the federal government.
Peter: Citation??
- Frank Krygowski