On 2018-03-25 07:37, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote:
[...]
In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and
the facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings
out the riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood,
and (3) Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the
culture in PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are
zero facilities, and the cyclists just take over -- which is
really frustrating if you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I
at least try to keep my speed up. Many dawdle with their
eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.
Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you
start with a very low number cycling never gets started.
Except that it did in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a
surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young
creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that
busy and there were and are alternative routes through the
neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary
roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural
roads with no shoulders.
I trust your judgment since you seem to live there long enough but the
stories in publications sound differently (for those on low BW
connections, this is an 11MB PDF file):
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared....cfm?id=217489
Quote "The accelerating growth in bicycle use validates Portland's
"build it and they will come" approach to bicycle transportation".
Again, I'm not against infrastructure. It has its place, and its
particularly valuable if there are no usable roads or where there are
lots of bicycles and it relieves traffic pressure. Bikes are
traffic, and having a lane for bikes moves traffic.
Yes, bikes are traffic by most cyclists do not feel safe inside fast
traffic. Just like we would not feel safe driving a car on the same
stretch where a landing Boeing 747 could show up in the rear view mirror.
But putting in bike lanes did not create the bicycle traffic in
Portland, at least not initially. Facilities are now necessary just
to handle the volume, and the bike lanes and other facilities
undoubtedly brought out some more cyclists -- but figuring out who
those are would take some effort and not just guessing. I much
preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with
minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes. I would settle for a
wide shoulder, though. It really makes no difference to me except
that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but
that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules.
Same here. The long county road back out of the Sacramento Valley only
has bike lanes in spots but much of it now has wide enough shoulders. I
ride there a lot but most other riders would never do that. That is why
we have split commutes or however that is called, where people truck it
to a park & ride lot in the valley near the American River bike path,
then ride the remaining stretch to work.
This part of my ride is roughly the last 8mi of my trip when returning
from the valley and it is not at all enjoyable. I'd much prefer a
segragated bike path. It would increase safety WRT distracted, stone,
soused or whatever drivers. It would also get me away from the constant
noise (drowns out my MP3 player even when on max volume) and most of all
the Diesel soot. When I hit rush hour on that road which is very often
then a cough often develops by the end of the ride. It doesn't if it's
not rush hour. That is not healthy.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/