|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town
I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had lots of infrastructure. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment will naturally follow." I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had lots of infrastructure. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment will naturally follow." I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam. The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats on that. I am doubtful but I could be wrong. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had lots of infrastructure. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment will naturally follow." I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam. The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats on that. I am doubtful but I could be wrong. For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"]. Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west of the West Hills. Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes unless it is flat, placed near town or some work destination, the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks will never ride. Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis. -- Jay Beattie. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had lots of infrastructure. They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure. That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling. IOW if you don't build it they'll leave. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment will naturally follow." I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam. The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats on that. I am doubtful but I could be wrong. There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure has phenomenal growth: https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903 It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow. For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"]. Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west of the West Hills. Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes unless it is flat, ... Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which were all quite hilly. ... placed near town or some work destination, ... Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head. ... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot. ... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does. ... She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks will never ride. Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis. It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial garage queen owners. I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
On 3/24/2018 10:21 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had lots of infrastructure. They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure. That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling. IOW if you don't build it they'll leave. Â*Change the culture.Â* Create cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine.Â* If you do, then the built environment will naturally follow." I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam. The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are rightly suspicious of.Â* That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but does it add to them?Â* I'm sure someone has some stats on that.Â* I am doubtful but I could be wrong. There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure has phenomenal growth: https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903 It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow. For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and riding the same bank of elevators every morning.Â* No, this is not a suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"]. Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west of the West Hills. Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes unless it is flat, ... Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which were all quite hilly. Â* ... placed near town or some work destination, ... Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head. Â*... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot. ...Â* Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does. Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ...Â* She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility.Â* Those folks will never ride. Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis. It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial garage queen owners. I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens. Joerg, you have convinced "some" to start riding again. Wonderful - but how many is "some"? Did you get the local bike mode share above 10%? Above 3%? No, "some" probably means three people rode their bikes for a while. Odds are they will soon find something else to do. Let's recall that despite all the rah-rah news tied to the thousands of various bike facilities built in the past decades, bike mode share is still microscopic: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...t_popular.html Let's recall that during the years when a lawsuit prevented almost ANY bike construction in San Francisco, cycling still rose in popularity as much as it did in cities that were painting their roads green and shuttling cyclists into chutes. It was fashionable to ride, so people rode. No infrastructure necessary. And lets recall that fashion is powerful but temporary. The current increases in bike use are not as great as the surge in the early 1970s. These modest increases are probably tied more to trendiness than to weird segregated facilities. And the trendiness may last no longer than the tie-dyed bell bottoms, disco, cabbage patch dolls or fidget spinners. I think those who love riding bicycles will ride. Everyone else will travel by the most convenient method available. Some of those "others" will be on bikes, but in a country where people drive over 25 miles on a typical day, most won't give up the car for the bike. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had lots of infrastructure. They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure. That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling. IOW if you don't build it they'll leave. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment will naturally follow." I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam. The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats on that. I am doubtful but I could be wrong. There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure has phenomenal growth: https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903 It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow. For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"]. Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west of the West Hills. Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes unless it is flat, ... Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which were all quite hilly. ... placed near town or some work destination, ... Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head. ... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot. ... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does. ... She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks will never ride. Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis. It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial garage queen owners. I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens. I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to go for a fun-ride. We're talking about transportation facilities that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat and putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes, although the facilities can be overrun by walkers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking or driving, particularly on Manhattan. In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3) Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities, and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells. -- Jay Beattie. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote: [...] ... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot. ... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does. ... She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks will never ride. Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis. It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial garage queen owners. I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens. I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to go for a fun-ride. That does have serious health benefits. People will truck their bikes as long as there are no routes to the trails that they perceive as safe. I am also talking about people riding to an evening in town instead of taking a cab, Uber or Lyft. That is what happened in Manhattan and also here in Folsom. It reduces vehicle mileage. It does not matter whether it's their own motor vehicle or someone else's, pollution is pollution. ... We're talking about transportation facilities that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat ... It was clearly not flat after putting in the bike infrastructure, as evidenced. Naturally, any benefit will eventually plateau if either no more bike paths are built or nearly all people willing to cycle use their bicycles. In America that's never going to be a large percentage, as has been evidenced by your elevator talks. ... and putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes, although the facilities can be overrun by walkers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking or driving, particularly on Manhattan. In NYC it's the same in a motor vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WiJgI3N4A A typical sign of a space crammed too full of people and one of them many reasons I will never live in a large city. Beither will my wife and she grew up in a huge metropolis. I can't sing like the guy in the video but I have a few train horn tracks on my MP3 player. Does the job, gently. Once I couldn't resist. Two girls were walking on singletrack at a section next to old railroad tracks. One of them walked on a rail so they could talk. I rode up very quietly and then turned on the MP3 track with the big Union Pacific locomotive sound, including horn. There hasn't been a large train since the 80's but the reaction was priceless. In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3) Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities, and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells. Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you start with a very low number cycling never gets started. For example, I regularly cycle through this underpass and then with the lights on full bore and at max speed. Even very seasoned local cyclists refuse to do that. Except for one of them they all took the "chicken exit", riding slowly on the side walk. Of course that is technically illegal but also a major hassle when coming from the other side as there is only a sidewalk on one side. Just one example of many. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
On 2018-03-24 11:56, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote: [...] ... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot. ... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does. ... She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks will never ride. Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis. It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial garage queen owners. I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens. I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to go for a fun-ride. That does have serious health benefits. People will truck their bikes as long as there are no routes to the trails that they perceive as safe. I am also talking about people riding to an evening in town instead of taking a cab, Uber or Lyft. That is what happened in Manhattan and also here in Folsom. It reduces vehicle mileage. It does not matter whether it's their own motor vehicle or someone else's, pollution is pollution. ... We're talking about transportation facilities that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat ... It was clearly not flat after putting in the bike infrastructure, as evidenced. Naturally, any benefit will eventually plateau if either no more bike paths are built or nearly all people willing to cycle use their bicycles. In America that's never going to be a large percentage, as has been evidenced by your elevator talks. ... and putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes, although the facilities can be overrun by walkers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking or driving, particularly on Manhattan. In NYC it's the same in a motor vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WiJgI3N4A A typical sign of a space crammed too full of people and one of them many reasons I will never live in a large city. Beither will my wife and she grew up in a huge metropolis. I can't sing like the guy in the video but I have a few train horn tracks on my MP3 player. Does the job, gently. Once I couldn't resist. Two girls were walking on singletrack at a section next to old railroad tracks. One of them walked on a rail so they could talk. I rode up very quietly and then turned on the MP3 track with the big Union Pacific locomotive sound, including horn. There hasn't been a large train since the 80's but the reaction was priceless. In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3) Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities, and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells. Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you start with a very low number cycling never gets started. For example, I regularly cycle through this underpass and then with the lights on full bore and at max speed. Even very seasoned local cyclists refuse to do that. Except for one of them they all took the "chicken exit", riding slowly on the side walk. Of course that is technically illegal but also a major hassle when coming from the other side as there is only a sidewalk on one side. Just one example of many. Sorry, forgot the link: https://goo.gl/maps/avgYWtt9f4C2 -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2018 10:21 AM, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote: On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had lots of infrastructure. They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure. That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling. IOW if you don't build it they'll leave. Â*Change the culture.Â* Create cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine.Â* If you do, then the built environment will naturally follow." I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam. The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are rightly suspicious of.Â* That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but does it add to them?Â* I'm sure someone has some stats on that.Â* I am doubtful but I could be wrong. There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure has phenomenal growth: https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903 It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow. For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and riding the same bank of elevators every morning.Â* No, this is not a suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"]. Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west of the West Hills. Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes unless it is flat, ... Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which were all quite hilly. Â* ... placed near town or some work destination, ... Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head. Â*... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot. ...Â* Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does. Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ...Â* She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility.Â* Those folks will never ride. Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis. It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial garage queen owners. I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens. Joerg, you have convinced "some" to start riding again. Wonderful - but how many is "some"? Did you get the local bike mode share above 10%? Above 3%? No, "some" probably means three people rode their bikes for a while. Odds are they will soon find something else to do. Let's recall that despite all the rah-rah news tied to the thousands of various bike facilities built in the past decades, bike mode share is still microscopic: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...t_popular.html Let's recall that during the years when a lawsuit prevented almost ANY bike construction in San Francisco, cycling still rose in popularity as much as it did in cities that were painting their roads green and shuttling cyclists into chutes. It was fashionable to ride, so people rode. No infrastructure necessary. And lets recall that fashion is powerful but temporary. The current increases in bike use are not as great as the surge in the early 1970s. These modest increases are probably tied more to trendiness than to weird segregated facilities. And the trendiness may last no longer than the tie-dyed bell bottoms, disco, cabbage patch dolls or fidget spinners. I think those who love riding bicycles will ride. Everyone else will travel by the most convenient method available. Some of those "others" will be on bikes, but in a country where people drive over 25 miles on a typical day, most won't give up the car for the bike. Facilities in some places will increase ridership -- but determining the effect of the facility on the increase is really hard. There are billions of riders in the new south waterfront cycle track that weren't there 30 years ago. Nobody was there 30 years ago except me and some crack-heads, back when it was a pot-holed road through a warehouse district and former shipyard. Now it is a massive condo development -- a pop-up mini-city for the hipster urbanites. I think it is blight and preferred the empty, rutted road, but now it's crawling with people, streetcars, buses, aerial trams -- and cyclists. On the other hand, millions were spent on the HWY 205 bike path, and I never see anyone riding out there or way out on Burnside in the pin-head region.. You can put in awesome facilities, and the locals won't give a sh** if they're a bunch of mullet-heads tossing 40 ouncers out their car windows. You have to have people who want to ride. I only ride those facilities when I'm getting out to the Gorge. It's nice having them, but not much ROI. -- Jay Beattie. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote: On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote: On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote: [...] ... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot. ... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does. ... She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks will never ride. Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis. It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial garage queen owners. I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens. I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to go for a fun-ride. That does have serious health benefits. People will truck their bikes as long as there are no routes to the trails that they perceive as safe. I am also talking about people riding to an evening in town instead of taking a cab, Uber or Lyft. That is what happened in Manhattan and also here in Folsom. It reduces vehicle mileage. It does not matter whether it's their own motor vehicle or someone else's, pollution is pollution. ... We're talking about transportation facilities that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat ... It was clearly not flat after putting in the bike infrastructure, as evidenced. Naturally, any benefit will eventually plateau if either no more bike paths are built or nearly all people willing to cycle use their bicycles. In America that's never going to be a large percentage, as has been evidenced by your elevator talks. "Flat" meaning topographically flat. ... and putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes, although the facilities can be overrun by walkers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking or driving, particularly on Manhattan. In NYC it's the same in a motor vehicle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WiJgI3N4A A typical sign of a space crammed too full of people and one of them many reasons I will never live in a large city. Beither will my wife and she grew up in a huge metropolis. I can't sing like the guy in the video but I have a few train horn tracks on my MP3 player. Does the job, gently. Once I couldn't resist. Two girls were walking on singletrack at a section next to old railroad tracks. One of them walked on a rail so they could talk. I rode up very quietly and then turned on the MP3 track with the big Union Pacific locomotive sound, including horn. There hasn't been a large train since the 80's but the reaction was priceless. In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3) Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities, and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells. Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you start with a very low number cycling never gets started. Except that it did in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that busy and there were and are alternative routes through the neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural roads with no shoulders. Again, I'm not against infrastructure. It has its place, and its particularly valuable if there are no usable roads or where there are lots of bicycles and it relieves traffic pressure. Bikes are traffic, and having a lane for bikes moves traffic. But putting in bike lanes did not create the bicycle traffic in Portland, at least not initially. Facilities are now necessary just to handle the volume, and the bike lanes and other facilities undoubtedly brought out some more cyclists -- but figuring out who those are would take some effort and not just guessing. I much preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes. I would settle for a wide shoulder, though. It really makes no difference to me except that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules. -- Jay Beattie. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nice bicycling article in Washington Post | Frank Krygowski[_2_] | General | 8 | August 7th 08 02:47 AM |
Nice Herald Tribune article | Mark McNeill | UK | 0 | May 6th 06 04:43 PM |
Nice Retro Lemond Article | B. Lafferty | Racing | 10 | October 4th 05 07:58 PM |
Nice Bike Industry Article | TBF::. | Mountain Biking | 22 | December 7th 04 09:00 PM |
Bike towns | Steven | General | 5 | August 3rd 03 10:33 PM |