On 4/21/2018 6:39 PM, sms wrote:
On 4/21/2018 2:31 PM, AMuzi wrote:

snip

Frank, you don't see the big picture.

If a couple million dollars of pavement and striping in Santa Clara
increased a household's commuters from one to two, then it's clear
that if the nation would merely replace all structures with
underground bunkers and pave everything dead smooth, without curbs or
automobile lanes,Â* we could have 330 million commuters! Extrapolate, man!

Exactly. And you have to realize that "a couple million dollars" is
pocket change in the scheme of things. A "Bicycle Boulevard" costs very
little and results in significant increases. But we are now working on
converting striped bike lanes into protected bike lanes. It's necessary
because without a physical barrier the bicycle lanes are used for
pick-ups/drop-offs, loading zones, cell phone waiting areas, etc..

The big money has been in creating safe ways to cross freeways and other
major highways. A simple bicycle/pedestrian overpass across an eight
lane freeway will cost $8 million. We have two high schools where it's
extremely difficult for students living in one area to get to school
either by foot or bicycle, so they mostly get driven to school. The
proposed overpass will likely get at least a couple of hundred of these
students to cycle to school on nice days, and will also serve as a
commuter route for others.

$8 million pays for about 1/5 of a mile of above-ground light-rail line,
0.035 miles of above-ground heavy rail (BART), and about 1/2 mile of an
eight lane freeway. With our local transit agency having a 9% fare
recovery, I'd rather spend money on enabling more cycling.

While it's unusual for me to agree with Scharf, bicycle boulevards and
access across freeways are two types of bicycle infrastructure that do
make sense to me.

To generalize the latter: Freeways were almost always installed with no
thought to their barrier effect on non-motorists. Driving several miles
to access the nearest crossing point is a minor burden for a motorist,
but a major one for someone not using an engine.

Similarly, it's not unusual for shopping centers to abut residential
areas, but have no access except a trip of one mile or more by motor
vehicle on heavy traffic roads. I favor bike-ped paths that serve as
direct connections. I also favor bike-ped paths linking cul-de-sac
housing developments. Those developments would then limit cut-through
motor traffic (their main goal) while allowing kids to get to school on
their own.

But as with all bike infrastructure, we need to defend our rights not to
use it if we choose. Like it or not, much of it is still badly designed.
Competent cyclists may have good reasons for using the normal road instead.

--
- Frank Krygowski