On 7/21/2018 6:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:

snip

The notion that physically separated facilities are absolutely necessary to increase bike mode share is also proved wrong every day in PDX. Yes, the east side Springwater gets a lot of traffic -- but its closed for repairs, and the traffic is now on the streets. People continue to ride. And much of the traffic from the close-in east side is on traffic calmed streets and ordinary bike lanes or neither of the above. And BTW, bicycle traffic is traffic, and on physically separated facilities, it can be like getting stuck in a conga line, and then you throw in walkers and dogs, etc.
Physically separated facilities have a variety of problems like cleaning, blockage by cars, etc. https://bikeportland.org/2013/04/22/...ike-path-85780 Those problems can be overcome, but it takes a higher degree of diligence by the entity with jurisdiction over the facility. If you build it, you better be prepared to take care of it -- and from a municipal budget standpoint, I don't know if you can tap your gas tax allocation or have to use general funds, which are always tight.

The big increases around here came from a combination of infrastructure
and financial incentives like "we'll pay you $5 a day to not drive to
work." Combine employer-subsidized transit with infrastructure that
makes bicycle commuting possible and financially beneficial, and you can
have a BIG increase. The businesses get to provide less parking and use
more of the land for buildings. While they could have also done
underground parking, doing so is extremely expensive, the subsidies are
cheaper.

I also suggested, only have jokingly, that we would be better off buying
everyone that agrees to use one x number of days per year, a $2000
electric bicycle. We could buy 20,000 of them for the construction cost
of one mile of light-rail track.