On 6/14/2020 7:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 9:42:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 8:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
For you, Frank, everything is deceit or propaganda if it doesn't fit your agenda...
Baloney. You're constructing grossly over-generalized straw men.
which is sometimes opaque and/or contradictory. You want to increase utility cycling, but you rant against basically any facilities.
Really? And yet, I'm almost solely responsible for some local
facilities, and worked on a small committee that's responsible for
another. I've spoken publicly in favor of another besides those, and I
worked on a statewide committee that funded many more.
If you want to rationally discuss facility benefits and detriments,
let's do it. Don's snipe about them in a rambling rant.
Hardly rambling. I don't recall that you have ever endorsed a bicycle facility. Which ones do you endorse in your community versus which ones were actually built?
And unless you are very wealthy, I doubt that you were solely or primarily responsible for any facility. CABs and clubs give testimony, and elected or appointed officials and their staff make the decisions. Maybe your testimony was super-good.
There used to be a little dirt/mud path that connected the village
center with the dead end of a nice residential collector street.
Actually, the street was a bit disconintuous - after a block or so,
there was another block's worth of dirt path. Decades ago, a streetcar
line ran that way. There's also a water main under it.
I was on a bicycle-pedestrian committee for my village, working on
getting federal "ISTEA" grants. (We got three, an impressive score for a
tiny village.) Anyway, during that time the water company replaced the
pipe and destroyed the little paths. With the permission of the
committee, I wrote the letter to the water company suggesting that they
repair and upgrade the path. They did so willingly, and now it's a very
highly used shortcut into the center of the village.
The other situation was a major bridge over a freeway - or rather, two
parallel bridges, since the eastbound is structurally independent of the
westbound. The westbound bridge has two 12 foot lanes, and had a narrow
raised concrete ... walkway?? I don't know what its intent, but it was
about 8" higher than the roadway, maybe 24" wide, and if someone walked
on it, the guardrail came up to about the height of their thighs.
Tripping would send a person over the rail to the freeway below.
Yet a few people did walk across that bridge, since it connects some
large residential areas with major shopping plazas just 1/4 to 1/2 mile
away.
I heard the bridge was going to get major maintenance, so I began a
campaign to widen the bridge. I wrote letters, my friends wrote letters,
I called people at the MPO (the second in command is one of my
graduates, I've done volunteer work for them, they know me well). I
ended up in a three way phone conference with the second in command,
plus the person in charge of transportation issues. They said it would
be very, very expensive, I said if not done now, it would not get done
for 30 years. They said ODOT was afraid of liability for putting in a
sidewalk because there was no sidewalk east of the bridge. I said widen
the pavement, but don't mark it as a sidewalk or bike lane.
Ultimately they did what I suggested, even though it cost roughly a
hundred thousand dollars, IIRC. They widened the bridge but marked the
extra width with diagonal "keep off" stripes. I still generally take the
right 12 foot lane because, as usual, there's gravel where cars don't
roll. But the walking is much safer, and the biking somewhat safer.
Separated facilities are what account for the NL's high bicycle mode share. There is no question about that...
That's simplistic nonsense, and probably backward. Netherlands' history
and bicycle culture account for its separated facilities. It had high
bike mode share when it had almost no such facilities. And places with
Netherlands-style facilities but without its other attributes still have
tiny mode shares.
WTF? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ng-kindermoord The bike facilities in the NL are of relatively recent origin.
The point you missed is this: If Netherlanders had no strong tradition
of travel without cars, they would not have mounted that campaign. The
quote is "The streets _no longer_ belonged to the people who lived
there." In the U.S., for 100 years (longer than several generations'
memory, the streets never did belong to the people.)
I shouldn't have said anything...
Yes, on several topics.
Those countries with the highest mode shares are not chock-full-o vehicular cyclists. Most are riding in protected facilities of one sort or another or traffic calmed streets. The Amsterdam and Copenhagens of the world.
"The Amsterdam and Copenhagens of the world" is a laughably small
sample, Jay. Why not give an example where cycling culture was not
previously dominant, but where the city or country's traffic is now
dominated by bicycles instead of cars? And where a typical resident can,
and does, get to almost any daily destination via protected facilities?
I'll wait.
Uh (raising hand), Amsterdam. See above.
You ignored the "was not previously dominant" part. Check out Amsterdam
in the 1950s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ4XQElmO_E
If Amsterdam wasn't like that in the 1950s, it wouldn't be as it is today.
I don't know this for a fact, but with the short commutes and added protected bike facilities in NYC and Brooklyn, adding infrastructure here has probably increased bike mode share. https://www.amny.com/transit/nyc-bic...ys-1.11763975/
Perhaps, for a certain value of increase. By now you should know that
increasing from 1.5% to 2% bike mode share is considered a triumph in an
American city. But that's not what I asked. Where are the really
significant increases that are attributable to bike facilities? Hey, how
about Milton Keynes or Stevenage in England? GREAT facilities! But 2%
mode share.
The real question is whether the small increase justifies the expense.
Is that the real question?
"SOME facilities do bring out SOME new cyclists" is probably the lowest
bar possible. It's down there with "Well, helmets must prevent SOME head
injuries!" or "But riding a bike can cause SOME injuries!" or "But Trump
has done SOME good for the U.S." Heck, send me $100,000. I'll invest it
for you and guarantee SOME return.
I'd say the first real question is, what does the country want to
achieve with respect to bike ridership? How much do we want, and why do
we want to do it?
Then I'd ask what is really realistic? Strip away the dreams that more
bicyclists will remove city congestion (Portland is still congested as
hell) or greatly lower greenhouse gases (perhaps it will a tiny bit, but
it would be undetectable - too far down the list to bother with).
And what is realistically achievable? Even magically trendy Portland
can't reach 10% bike mode share among its hip residents. Cleveland,
Jacksonville, Detroit, Los Angeles etc. are absolutely never going to
become Amsterdam.
What are you suggesting? Do nothing but sneer at facilities, helmets, sport riders, etc., etc.?
My first suggestion is to define the problem or the objective, and do it
in concrete, measurable ways. "Get more people on bikes" does not qualify.
So what do you want to do? Reduce or remove traffic congestion, as
Scharf has suggested? Portland hasn't done that in any measurable way.
Perhaps Davis CA has, but it's even more unique than Portland OR.
Do you want to significantly reduce greenhouse gases? My guess [can I
borrow that, Jeff?] is one electric bus is worth 100 bike commuters. If
you take the money Portland put into bike chutes and bought wind farm
shares, it would cut more CO2.
Do you just want people on bikes because it's cool to see people on
bikes? I like seeing people on bikes, except maybe when they're heading
toward me on a head-on collision path. But should society spend fortunes
on stuff that's merely cool?
Tell me your objectives. I'll suggest a strategy or two.
But one thing I'd certainly stop doing is the schizophrenic messaging:
"Bicycling is great for you! It's great for society! But it's SO
DANGEROUS! Don't do it without protective gear!! Don't do it on ordinary
roads!!" That makes zero sense.
In some PDX neighborhoods its 20% bike mode share. High citywide numbers would be hard because of distances and most people not wanting to do 10% climbs from the west side.
If you shrink your focus area to a carefully chosen zone, you can get
wonderful numbers. Between me and three adjacent neighbors, I'm pretty
sure our mode share is over 20%. But that's just coincidence. (It's cool
that the guy who moved in two doors away is a career bike mechanic.)
After all that, if you finally have a realistic bike mode share goal for
realistic reasons, ask what's the best way of achieving it. It's not
going to be spending a million dollars a mile for "protected" bike
chutes that violate fundamental rules of traffic movement.
If you weren't so intent on arguing with me, you'd admit that.
I'm not intent on arguing with you. Having done much of he same sort of advocacy work, albeit not bike club-based (because I hate the officiousness and showing up at meetings in the same dopey discount jerseys)...
sigh Your portrayal of at least our bike club is way off. Not that I'm
as involved as I once was.
and living in a city that is infrastructure crazy and has tons of cyclists, I know that some infrastructure is good and some is bad...
Yes. So why mock me when I mention what's bad? Must I promise to mention
what's good whenever I see it? Or _if_ I see it?
(Today's ride featured me avoiding a short bike lane. I actually didn't
know it was a bike lane until riding by it with a friend a week or two
ago. She said "No, really, it has bike lane markings under all that
gravel. Didn't you see the 'Bike Lane Ends' sign at the intersection?")
... and my views on what is bad are not necessarily shared by exactly the type of cyclists you champion -- plain folks out to buy a gallon of milk at the Piggly Wiggly.
That's actually a significant problem with bike advocacy. "Plain folks
on bikes" are the ones who think "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility." I've mentioned before various facilities that before-after
data clearly show big increases in crashes; but users in surveys say "I
feel safer." In fact, people like John Pucher, Roger Geller, etc. make a
lot of hay about people's feelings, even when those feelings are wrong.
You think you're the only right one.
"Only"? Seriously, do you think I'm not in contact with lots of other
people who share my views? They tend to be people who have gasp!
studied the relevant data, on whatever topic you choose.
What is Youngstown's bike mode share? Not seeing Youngstown on the list. http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/2020-...ngs-ridership/ Its wet even in June, and although we don't have the dreadful Ohio winters, we still ride in snow. https://i1.wp.com/usa.streetsblog.or...8314be95bf.jpg Day in. Day out. We're hardy Americans. So if you're not going to build facilities, how are you going to Youngstowners on bikes? Are you going to call them all Nancies and wussies? If so, can I help? That sounds like fun.
Youngstown's bike mode share is near zero. Interestingly, even almost
all avid riders here don't choose to bike to work or for utility. Sound
familiar? (Maybe it's because they, too, hate bike bags??)
But what if Youngstown put in some quasi-protected bike lanes? What if
the city started a "Biking is really cool and good for the environment!"
publicity campaign? How about an official "Bike to Work Day" with free
breakfast, giveaway trinkets, lots of publicity?
The bike mode share would still be near zero. Those things have happened
either here or in cities within my riding area. They've made no
detectable difference.
Fashion is weird and powerful. It's also very hard to control. It
happens on its own accord, with perhaps influence from the fundamental
culture of the area.
Here's a clue: I've never, ever seen a bumper sticker saying "Keep
Youngstown Weird."
--
- Frank Krygowski