On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 9:56:02 AM UTC-8, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 12:28:59 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/3/2019 6:24 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ms/2319972002/

- Frank Krygowski


How well connected are they? My commute to work has some fairly old and
narrow cycle paths built alongside the by pass, most of the time I don’t
see another cyclist as for most part. It makes sense for me but very few
others.

How well connected are they? Given that we're discussing locations
spanning the country, I'd say some are well connected and some are not,
just as they have been for many years.

To me, the significant point is this: For years, organizations who
promote segregated facilities have trumpeted increases in bike mode
share wherever they've been able to find them; and they've said "See?
The increase was because of the bike lanes!" and/or "We'll see even more
increases if we build more bike lanes..." ... or cycle tracks, or linear
parks, or whatever.

That propaganda ignored many, many places that built new bike lanes and
saw no increases in bike use. That also ignored places like San
Francisco that saw very large increases in bike use without building any
new bike facilities.
http://www.sfweekly.com/news/ironica...ycling-in-s-f/

I think there's much more to it. Bike mode share is governed by many
factors, and segregated facilities are usually only a small contributor..
Gas prices probably make a difference. Weather makes a difference. The
general economy makes a difference. Traffic congestion, if extreme
(think NYC) can make a difference. But I think fashion makes the biggest
difference of all. If it becomes trendy to bike, more people will bike
because it's trendy.

I think bike lanes, etc. can bump that a bit, but not because they make
bicycling safer or more practical. They simply function as a sort of
advertisement for bicycling. When they're new, some people will for the
first time in a long time think "Hmm. Bicycling." Then they may see a
few people riding in a bike lane and think "Hmm. I could do that."
Repeat often enough and they may try it, and numbers go up.

But most will not love it. They'll say "I got all sweaty" or "I got a
flat tire" or just "It's easier in the car." And trendiness is short
lived. When the "new and cool" wears off, people just fall back into
their normal habits.

The people whose jobs depend on new bike facilities - everyone at the
League of American Bicyclists, at People for Bikes (nee Bikes Belong),
at Toole Design Group etc. - will either ignore the drops in bike mode
share, or (more likely) say "See? We need MORE bike lanes!"

But those of us who love to ride will ride. Those who have no
alternative will ride. Those who are sucked in by trends will move on to
the next trend. Maybe ear tattoos?

--
- Frank Krygowski

One of the small cities that I often bicycle through on my long rides is talking about putting a bicycle lane in on one of its main streets. The problem is that that street can NOT be widened which means that the bicycle lane is going to be right in t he door zone - again. Again, because that's where most of the bicycle lanes in that city are.

Cheers

We still have three main bridges in the area that don't have bike lanes on them. I think that when they do get these facilities bicycling will really take off because the traffic is so unbelievably heavy that you can get many places faster on a bicycle.

In normal traffic I could get to Tesla faster on a bike.