|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |