On 2018-07-01 22:36, sms wrote:
On 7/1/2018 8:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/30/2018 4:26 PM, sms wrote:
On 6/30/2018 12:57 PM, Joerg wrote:

snip

It is sad when people say "Oh, if we can't be like
Amsterdam, let's forget about all that and do nothing". My
hope is that such people will never make it into public
office.

Perhaps because I'm someone that now actually has to deal
with the reality of all of this, rather than an outsider
looking in and complaining that if infrastructure doesn't
get 99% of people onto bicycles then it's a waste of money.

The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually
relatively inexpensive, on a per trip basis.

We have a lot of Silicon Valley Cities with a bare majority
in favor of cycling. It can easily change. Ironically,
developers are suddenly pro-bike because they use it as a
way to justify providing insufficient parking. But the
reality is that getting people to do transportational
cycling, at least some of the time, is not going to reduce
the need for parking at residential developments.

snip

Yesterday I was sitting next to a woman from our transit
agency (VTA), a
hopelessly awful organization when it comes to running
buses and trains,
but they also build some of the bicycle infrastructure. I
pulled out my
phone and brought up Google Maps and showed her where we
badly needed a
bicycle freeway over-crossing. She instantly recognized
the location and
told me "it's in the bike plan." ...


For fiscal year 2072? :-)

No, no, but probably not for five more years.

snip

I only half-jokingly suggested that it would be far more
cost-effective,
in terms of number of single-occupancy vehicle reduction,
to not build
any more light rail ($40 million/mile) or heavy rail ($1+
billion/mile)
and just buy a few hundred thousand electric bicycles to
distribute with
certain caveats. Remember, those dollar figures are just the
construction costs for the track, and don't include
equipment or
operations and maintenance.


It would be but we need to keep in mind the elderly and
disabled. Also, many Americans would never consider a
bicycle even if they had a red carpet all the way to the
destination.

We're only trying to get a modest percentage of people on
bicycles. Those unable to use a bicycle will have other
options.


"The reality is that bicycle infrastructure is actually
relatively inexpensive, on a per trip basis."

When compared to the $12 toll on the George Washington Bridge maybe.
When compared to the cost of light rail or heavy rail. Even above
ground, light rail is about $40 million/mile if you already have the
ROW. Heavy rail 10X that at least. Creekside bicycle infrastructure is a
bargain compared to that. Again, we're mot trying to get 50%-100% of
people on bicycles. Just 10% would halp unclog the roads.


It's not just about unclogging. Aside from the health benefits even a
small increase in mode share has a multiplier effect of business
revenue. That turns into higher local taxes - ka-ching.

https://www.fastcodesign.com/1682022...on-a-bike-lane

Much of my discretionary spending happens at businesses with a
reasonable bike path network connection and bike policy. This also means
that related tax dollars are generated in Folsom instead of in El Dorado
County where I live. Some of which are plowed back into the bike path
system, which result in more business, which ...

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/