A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cycling surges in the land of the automobile



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old October 24th 10, 05:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,511
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On Oct 24, 11:40*am, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/23/2010 8:39 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:41:33 -0400, "Duane
wrote:


I don't get why people are against facilities. *They
always seems to increase cycling and are often
done well.


I'm not against long skinny parks. *I *am* against paying for them out
of the transportation budget instead of the parks-department budget.


There are lots of budgets at the federal level. The biggest one TE,
"Transportation Enhancements", has allocated ~9B 1992-2009. Of that,
about 1/2 has gone to bike/pedestrian projects, of that, only 8.4%
($536M) has gone to on-road bike, rails-to-trails and off-road trails
has been 11%($698M) and 34%($2.182B) respectively, pedestrian-only was
44%($2.8B).

States match at varying levels, mine (MA) is around 20%.

I think the reason that so little has been allocated for on-road bike
facilities has been that there has been a strong constituency for
off-road/rail trails, while the on-road facility supporters have
historically been opposed by anti-facility bike advocates. Divided we fail.


There certainly is a strong constituency of people who think that
bikes should be ridden on completely separate trails, always out of
sight of any motor vehicle. You can see those people's cars parked at
any trail head. You can see their cars driving them and their bikes
back home after their out-and-back ride. You can't pretend those
events are going to change out transportation culture.

But I think the _main_ reason such a small percentage of Enhancement
funds go to on-road improvements is simply this: A mile of bike path
costs roughly a million dollars. When you build a few miles of bike
path, you've used up a lot of money. It's typically impossible to
then get (say) money to install decent bike racks, or to make all
traffic light detectors recognize cyclists, or to re-orient wheel
catching drainage grates, or to even keep the roads smoothly paved.
The sentiment becomes either "We've spent enough for bikes," or "They
got their #*%! bike path. That's where they should ride their bikes."

- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #22  
Old October 24th 10, 05:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On 10/23/2010 11:23 AM, Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/23/2010 12:47 PM, Mark J. wrote:

That's the /other/ reason why separated paths (in the US) are usually
not worth using for actual transportation - the design is by
non-cyclists, and is often terribly impractical.


We have a river trail in Boston, about 40 years old, without substantial
upgrade. It's pretty bad from a design POV. It's slower than the street
equivalent, both because it meanders with the river, and has mixed use,
plus the design issues. I posted a couple of videos recently that showed
the same commute by street and over this path. The guy who made them
claimed 28 vs. 40 minutes, which seemed accurate.

That path, which I think is fairly typical, gets a lot of commuting
cyclists M-F, while mostly recreational users on the weekend. I still
use it preferentially when I'm not in a hurry, especially in the summer,
since it's well shaded and relaxing. The 12 minutes isn't that big a
sacrifice. I don't think the trade offs are so distinct, despite its
general crappiness of design and surface conditions, a lot of commuting
cyclists seem to prefer it, too.


It's legal to ride on the expressways here, but not the freeways. It's a
much faster commute on the expressways, but it's very unpleasant. The
bicycle paths, when they are roughly parallel, are a much nicer commute
if you can spare an extra ten minutes or so.
  #23  
Old October 24th 10, 07:29 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On 10/24/2010 12:03 PM, SMS wrote:
On 10/23/2010 5:14 AM, Peter Cole wrote:

A much more hopeful one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM


That's what's desperately needed in the U.S. if we want to make cycling
mainstream transportation rather than the current state of being limited
to a small group of enthusiasts.

Well at least that video shows why helmets are not common in the
Netherlands!


The NL never "let the flame go out", they do training for children much
the same way now as in the 1930's (see youtube videos). The also, by our
standards, invest massively in cycling infrastructure. Whether even a
fraction of that is politically feasible here is arguable, but I think
there's no question it can be safe, efficient and even fast.
  #24  
Old October 24th 10, 08:08 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Henk Fictorie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

damyth wrote:

To make this discussion even more relevant, why don't you use Google
streetview to examine roads in Assen? The first thing you'll notice
is the over-abundant and confusing blue signage of bikes with a red
slash through it. What do you think that might mean?


We that's easy, it means that there are bikepaths. The red slash
indicates the end of the bikepath.

regards Henk
  #25  
Old October 24th 10, 08:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On 10/24/2010 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:40 am, Peter wrote:
On 10/23/2010 8:39 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010 08:41:33 -0400, "Duane
wrote:


I don't get why people are against facilities. They
always seems to increase cycling and are often
done well.


I'm not against long skinny parks. I *am* against paying for them out
of the transportation budget instead of the parks-department budget.


There are lots of budgets at the federal level. The biggest one TE,
"Transportation Enhancements", has allocated ~9B 1992-2009. Of that,
about 1/2 has gone to bike/pedestrian projects, of that, only 8.4%
($536M) has gone to on-road bike, rails-to-trails and off-road trails
has been 11%($698M) and 34%($2.182B) respectively, pedestrian-only was
44%($2.8B).

States match at varying levels, mine (MA) is around 20%.

I think the reason that so little has been allocated for on-road bike
facilities has been that there has been a strong constituency for
off-road/rail trails, while the on-road facility supporters have
historically been opposed by anti-facility bike advocates. Divided we fail.


There certainly is a strong constituency of people who think that
bikes should be ridden on completely separate trails, always out of
sight of any motor vehicle. You can see those people's cars parked at
any trail head. You can see their cars driving them and their bikes
back home after their out-and-back ride. You can't pretend those
events are going to change out transportation culture.

But I think the _main_ reason such a small percentage of Enhancement
funds go to on-road improvements is simply this: A mile of bike path
costs roughly a million dollars. When you build a few miles of bike
path, you've used up a lot of money. It's typically impossible to
then get (say) money to install decent bike racks, or to make all
traffic light detectors recognize cyclists, or to re-orient wheel
catching drainage grates, or to even keep the roads smoothly paved.
The sentiment becomes either "We've spent enough for bikes," or "They
got their #*%! bike path. That's where they should ride their bikes."


I don't follow the logic. On street bike facilities are finally going in
now at a much higher pace than in most of the years since 1992. What has
changed? In many places (e.g. Boston & Dallas), anti-facility bike
commissioners have been replaced by pro-facility people. As described in
the video below, anti-bike cycling advocates played a large part in the
actual removal of buffered lanes in NYC.

Some history of early protected bike lanes in NYC, "Gridlock Sam
Schwartz, on 1980 bike lanes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awfNxaoqjjk

A lengthier 3-part interview on traffic planning and automotive use in NYC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWJpYzjagr4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixbQQ...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESrybPvyx_U&NR=1

The last one, near the end, talks about deviating from AASHTO & the MUTCD.
  #26  
Old October 24th 10, 09:09 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On 10/24/2010 3:08 PM, Henk Fictorie wrote:
damyth wrote:

To make this discussion even more relevant, why don't you use Google
streetview to examine roads in Assen? The first thing you'll notice
is the over-abundant and confusing blue signage of bikes with a red
slash through it. What do you think that might mean?


We that's easy, it means that there are bikepaths. The red slash
indicates the end of the bikepath.

regards Henk


Oops, looks like I need to go to Dutch cycling school:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16AO0_08r3o
  #27  
Old October 24th 10, 11:05 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
James[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,153
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On Oct 23, 11:14*pm, Peter Cole wrote:

A much more hopeful one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2n_znwWroGM


I saw a dude riding, presumably to work, on a unicycle just the other
day. On the footpath with no helmet.

JS.
  #28  
Old October 24th 10, 11:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
damyth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 345
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On Oct 24, 2:37*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
It seems to me -- not pointing a finger at you particularly, Damyth
because many other hardcore commuters here share your opinion -- that
a small minority of cyclists want to behave on the cyclepaths like
motorists behave on the road, that is force everyone to maintain their
speed or get the hell out of their way. Lou Holtman has already
pointed out, perhaps two or three months ago, that the Dutch model
only works by slowing everyone down to pretty near a lowest common
denominator (did he say 15kph? -- gee, when I'm enjoying the
countryside, that's quite often faster than I ride).

I'm not offering a solution, but you might consider this: most
successful street planning proceeds from the principle of speed
control, and then the fast throughways are a bolt-on or set-aside
extra.

But I must say that, whether the solution is bike paths or integration
with automobile traffic, pandering the fast-commuter minority will
absolutely insure that cycling remains a Cinderella activity in the
US. There will simply never be enough hardcore commuters to justify
spending tax-payer funds on them instead of on motorists.

It is simply a fact of life that the 12-15kph lowest common
denominator has the most votes and the best chance of forming a bike
culture.

Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!

The speed limit argument may have some merit, but why would any
cyclist need it if we consider the alternatives? The only "pandering"
that's going on is to recreational cyclists. Vehicular cyclists are
not asking for any extraordinary considerations that motorists
wouldn't want, namely, sufficiently wide lanes.

Bike path advocates don't realize as bike ridership goes up, any bike
lanes that exist will become untenably congested. It's really no
different than the (vehicular) cul-de-sac neighborhood hells that I
talked about earlier. There won't be any alternative routes to
relieve congestion, because what's going to end up happening is all
cyclist traffic gets dumped on that single bike path, especially if
any segregation goes on.

This is all assuming that the the bike paths won't get "appropriated"
into multi-use, like for walking dogs, baby strolling, roller-bladers,
joggers, etc.
  #29  
Old October 25th 10, 12:05 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,422
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On Oct 24, 11:12*pm, damyth wrote:
On Oct 24, 2:37*pm, Andre Jute wrote:



It seems to me -- not pointing a finger at you particularly, Damyth
because many other hardcore commuters here share your opinion -- that
a small minority of cyclists want to behave on the cyclepaths like
motorists behave on the road, that is force everyone to maintain their
speed or get the hell out of their way. Lou Holtman has already
pointed out, perhaps two or three months ago, that the Dutch model
only works by slowing everyone down to pretty near a lowest common
denominator (did he say 15kph? -- gee, when I'm enjoying the
countryside, that's quite often faster than I ride).


I'm not offering a solution, but you might consider this: most
successful street planning proceeds from the principle of speed
control, and then the fast throughways are a bolt-on or set-aside
extra.


But I must say that, whether the solution is bike paths or integration
with automobile traffic, pandering the fast-commuter minority will
absolutely insure that cycling remains a Cinderella activity in the
US. There will simply never be enough hardcore commuters to justify
spending tax-payer funds on them instead of on motorists.


It is simply a fact of life that the 12-15kph lowest common
denominator has the most votes and the best chance of forming a bike
culture.


Andre Jute
Reformed petrol head
Car-free since 1992
Greener than thou!


The speed limit argument may have some merit, but why would any
cyclist need it if we consider the alternatives? *The only "pandering"
that's going on is to recreational cyclists. *Vehicular cyclists are
not asking for any extraordinary considerations that motorists
wouldn't want, namely, sufficiently wide lanes.

Bike path advocates don't realize as bike ridership goes up, any bike
lanes that exist will become untenably congested. *It's really no
different than the (vehicular) cul-de-sac neighborhood hells that I
talked about earlier. *There won't be any alternative routes to
relieve congestion, because what's going to end up happening is all
cyclist traffic gets dumped on that single bike path, especially if
any segregation goes on.

This is all assuming that the the bike paths won't get "appropriated"
into multi-use, like for walking dogs, baby strolling, roller-bladers,
joggers, etc.


That's the point, isn't it? Everyone will have to compromise on
multiuse of ALL facilities, because the alternative is abandoning the
roads to the caged fascists. The "everyone" who will have to
compromise includes commuters. The only people who have anything to
gain from an uncompromising attitude are automobilists. Everyone else,
including the hardcore commuter, can only lose by not compromising.

Andre Jute
A little, a very little thought will suffice -- John Maynard Keynes
  #30  
Old October 25th 10, 12:34 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Peter Cole[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,572
Default Cycling surges in the land of the automobile

On 10/24/2010 4:22 PM, damyth wrote:

So you think someone riding in a faired recumbent (which I'll
abbreviate as HPV) can safely ride at 70kph, on the same paths, at the
same time, as those kids riding to school with their parents depicted
in the video you cited?


No.


If that's not evidence of a severe reality distortion field, I don't
know what is. The whole idea of a separate facility for HPVs is
absurd. They don't need one given they go just as fast as cars.


I don't think the Dutch built bike facilities for 70 kph, but apparently
at least some are ridden at that speed in the vicinity of Assen.


Jay Beattie (as an example) commutes on a bike. I do the same. In
urban sprawl that spans more than 5 miles. This doesn't have much to
do with "urban density" or how close the nearest Starbucks is. NYC
has a higher urban density than Boston, it also spans a larger area
than Boston (and they both dwarf Assen). The point is if you intend
to go from one end to another in NYC or Portland vs. Assen, it means
in order for bike paths to be useful, it can not be congested (i.e.
narrow), and must have a traffic flow that's way faster (in real life,
not "professional driver on empty course") than the one in depicted in
Assen where parents rode to school with their kids.

Given these facts, now tell me how you plan on making the Assen model
work (in any "urban" city of your choice) in the US.


I didn't select the Assen video of school children for speed, or as an
example of urban commuting, only to show the numbers of children on
bikes, in response to the US "bike bus" video.

Assen appears to have many high speed bike paths (in other videos), no
doubt helped by its relatively low density and natural routes along
canals. Similar situations exist in many cities for "bike highways"
along other such natural features like rivers, lake and ocean shores,
and RR ROW's. Those have been exploited for decades to put in motor
expressways.

For travel over normal city streets in congested urban areas, it's not
the peak speeds that are important, but the average speeds, which are
mostly determined by intersections, particularly by queues during peak
times. Bike paths allow cyclists to bypass queues, so although their
peak speeds may be lower, their average speeds are usually higher. The
typical all-day urban average speed in a dense city is typically given
at 25 mph or so, peak time speeds may be half of that. It's not hard to
match or beat.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Toyota not on recall list surges. Doug[_3_] UK 21 March 12th 10 09:54 AM
Age of the automobile is kaput! Crescentius Vespasianus Techniques 40 June 10th 09 05:48 PM
too polite automobile drivers. bob syr General 19 June 12th 08 05:38 PM
Trike carrier for automobile? [email protected][_2_] Social Issues 0 September 4th 07 11:22 PM
Cycling Land Speed record Martin Bulmer UK 16 May 18th 07 07:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.