Build it and they won't come

Build it and they will come? Sorry, no.

Here's a new article dispelling the myth that segregated facilities
generate tremendous bike mode share.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ped-stevenage?

Unless motoring is actively dissuaded, almost all people who have cars
will drive cars.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:47:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Build it and they will come? Sorry, no.

Here's a new article dispelling the myth that segregated facilities
generate tremendous bike mode share.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ped-stevenage?

Unless motoring is actively dissuaded, almost all people who have cars
will drive cars.

One might speculate on how many of the posters here, who are gainfully
employed, do not own a car, do not use public transportation, and rely
solely on a bicycle for transportation?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:32:50 +0700, John B.
wrote:

One might speculate on how many of the posters here, who are gainfully
employed, do not own a car, do not use public transportation, and rely
solely on a bicycle for transportation?

I'm giving serious thought to joining the "drive someplace to ride a
bike" crowd.

Driving my own vehicle a long distance on a straight road is right out
because of the rotator cuff -- oh, rats, I rode right by the KABS
office *twice* today, and didn't think of stopping in to ask whether I
could take my bike with me on the "bus".

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 09:32:50 +0700, John B wrote:

One might speculate on how many of the posters here, who are
gainfully employed, do not own a car, do not use public
transportation, and rely solely on a bicycle for transportation?

LOL. My two person household owns three cars, eight bikes. My wife
walks to work practically every day (3 miles each way) and takes the
bus if she doesn't walk. She probably drives to work less than 5 times
a year and that is for a specific reason like having to leave from work
to do something for which the bus, riding or walking is impractical. I
ride to work or walk to work about 25% of the time (I work in two
locations a day- the closest are less than a mile from home and the
farthest are 30 miles from home; several are within feasible riding
distance from home and from each other so I *could* ride to work more
than I do).

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:47:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Build it and they will come? Sorry, no.

Here's a new article dispelling the myth that segregated facilities
generate tremendous bike mode share.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ped-stevenage?

Unless motoring is actively dissuaded, almost all people who have
cars will drive cars.

I remember seeing period BBC footage about this, describing the
innovations in place at the time. Now, maybe it's what you're used to;
I grew up in a very bikeable suburb of Chicago and all us kids just got
around on bikes. So I looked at infrastructure like this and was
puzzled as to why.

Apparently I wasn't alone.

In the Minneapolis-St Paul area we have been building out both
on-street and separated bike facilities. While I find much of the
design of the on-street facilities to be objectionable and even
downright stupid, there has been a noticeable increase in bike riding.
Most of them are young uns and are not wearing the pseudo-pro clown
suits (I'm still wearing mine, although I've reached an age and a body
composition where that's probably ill-advised). The separated
facilities- which are pretty extensive- get a whole lot of use; the
on-street facilities seem to get a lot of use too although not quite as
much.

But this doesn't seem to work everywhere. Denmark made it work by
taxing cars at an astonishing rate- owning a car is an economic
hardship for many if not most Danes due to the tax structure- and
pairing that with extensive on-street bike facilities. There would be
no way to accomplish something like that in the US, where owning a car
and having cheap fuel is effectively part of the Bill of Rights.

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:57:09 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:47:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Build it and they will come? Sorry, no.

Here's a new article dispelling the myth that segregated facilities
generate tremendous bike mode share.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ped-stevenage?

Unless motoring is actively dissuaded, almost all people who have
cars will drive cars.

I remember seeing period BBC footage about this, describing the
innovations in place at the time. Now, maybe it's what you're used to;
I grew up in a very bikeable suburb of Chicago and all us kids just got
around on bikes. So I looked at infrastructure like this and was
puzzled as to why.

Apparently I wasn't alone.

In the Minneapolis-St Paul area we have been building out both
on-street and separated bike facilities. While I find much of the
design of the on-street facilities to be objectionable and even
downright stupid, there has been a noticeable increase in bike riding.
Most of them are young uns and are not wearing the pseudo-pro clown
suits (I'm still wearing mine, although I've reached an age and a body
composition where that's probably ill-advised). The separated
facilities- which are pretty extensive- get a whole lot of use; the
on-street facilities seem to get a lot of use too although not quite as
much.

But this doesn't seem to work everywhere. Denmark made it work by
taxing cars at an astonishing rate- owning a car is an economic
hardship for many if not most Danes due to the tax structure- and
pairing that with extensive on-street bike facilities. There would be
no way to accomplish something like that in the US, where owning a car
and having cheap fuel is effectively part of the Bill of Rights.

Singapore tried the "tax it out of existence" scheme years ago and it
did work for a while but as the economy grew so did auto sales. Today
a new Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Standard will cost you, including the
first 6 months road tax, US$78,509, and traffic is a major problem.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:59:29 +0700, John B wrote:
On Wed, 20 Sep 2017 22:57:09 -0500, Tim McNamara
wrote:

But this doesn't seem to work everywhere. Denmark made it work by
taxing cars at an astonishing rate- owning a car is an economic
hardship for many if not most Danes due to the tax structure- and
pairing that with extensive on-street bike facilities. There would be
no way to accomplish something like that in the US, where owning a car
and having cheap fuel is effectively part of the Bill of Rights.

Singapore tried the "tax it out of existence" scheme years ago and it
did work for a while but as the economy grew so did auto sales. Today
a new Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Standard will cost you, including the
first 6 months road tax, US$78,509, and traffic is a major problem. --

Holy crap! That's what my house cost in 1993.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:59:29 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Singapore tried the "tax it out of existence" scheme years ago and it
did work for a while but as the economy grew so did auto sales. Today
a new Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Standard will cost you, including the
first 6 months road tax, US$78,509, and traffic is a major problem.

Comparing cost-o-living prices between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore &tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 294% more in Singapore than in L.A.
Gasoline is 92% more expensive.

Comparing Copenhagen and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Denmark&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Copenhagen& tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 96% more in Denmark than in L.A.
Gasoline is on 110% more expensive.

Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore
Bicycle as the main means of transportation:
L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35%

From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that
L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their
rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities.

To be uncharacteristically fair, this web site partly uses crowd
source input for data, which makes me suspect that the numbers have
been tweaked. Even if wrong, they're still interesting.

I don't know what went wrong in Stevenage. In any other town, such
dedicated bicycle paths would be infested with joggers, baby
carriages, radio controlled racers, skateboarders, push carts,
electric powered assault transports etc, which suggests that nobody is
using the paths using any means of transport. That's too strange to
not have an obvious cause. The paths might be going from nowhere to
nowhere, the weather is chronically uncooperative, there are
undesirables lurking along the paths, or something else that might
discourage its use.

Also, don't judge the quality of an idea by its first attempt. I did
that once when I passed judgment on personal music players. At the
time, the only example was the Diamond Multimedia Rio PMP 300 digital
media player. I bought one and it stunk in every possible way. So, I
declared the idea to be worthless, only to have the iPod appear 2-3
years later, which demonstrated conclusively that it was a good idea
and that my evaluation stunk as badly as the Diamond Rio.
https://maas.museum/event/interface/object/rio-pmp-300-digital-media-player/index.html
The moral is that innovators have to get everything right or the idea
won't work. Like the media player, the bike paths are part of a
system. Something is fundamentally wrong with some part of the system
at Stevenage. However, from here, I can't tell what it might be.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:35:36 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:59:29 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Singapore tried the "tax it out of existence" scheme years ago and it
did work for a while but as the economy grew so did auto sales. Today
a new Toyota Corolla Altis 1.6 Standard will cost you, including the
first 6 months road tax, US$78,509, and traffic is a major problem.

Comparing cost-o-living prices between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore &tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 294% more in Singapore than in L.A.
Gasoline is 92% more expensive.

Comparing Copenhagen and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Denmark&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Copenhagen& tracking=getDispatchComparison
A Toyota Corolla costs 96% more in Denmark than in L.A.
Gasoline is on 110% more expensive.

Comparing traffic between Singapore and Smog Angeles:
https://www.numbeo.com/traffic/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&country2 =Singapore&city1=Los+Angeles%2C+CA&city2=Singapore
Bicycle as the main means of transportation:
L.A. = 2.90%, Singapore = 2.35%

From the section "Average when primary using Bike" it would seem that
L.A. bicycle riders use cars, trains, and buses on part of their
rides, while Singapore riders use none of these facilities.

To be uncharacteristically fair, this web site partly uses crowd
source input for data, which makes me suspect that the numbers have
been tweaked. Even if wrong, they're still interesting.

I don't know what went wrong in Stevenage. In any other town, such
dedicated bicycle paths would be infested with joggers, baby
carriages, radio controlled racers, skateboarders, push carts,
electric powered assault transports etc, which suggests that nobody is
using the paths using any means of transport. That's too strange to
not have an obvious cause. The paths might be going from nowhere to
nowhere, the weather is chronically uncooperative, there are
undesirables lurking along the paths, or something else that might
discourage its use.

Also, don't judge the quality of an idea by its first attempt. I did
that once when I passed judgment on personal music players. At the
time, the only example was the Diamond Multimedia Rio PMP 300 digital
media player. I bought one and it stunk in every possible way. So, I
declared the idea to be worthless, only to have the iPod appear 2-3
years later, which demonstrated conclusively that it was a good idea
and that my evaluation stunk as badly as the Diamond Rio.
https://maas.museum/event/interface/object/rio-pmp-300-digital-media-player/index.html
The moral is that innovators have to get everything right or the idea
won't work. Like the media player, the bike paths are part of a
system. Something is fundamentally wrong with some part of the system
at Stevenage. However, from here, I can't tell what it might be.

The idea has worked in cities in The Netherlands and Denmark -- and probably other flat European cities. It is hard to tell if it has worked in PDX since the influx of cyclists pre-existed the creation of infrastructure, although the later-created close-in infrastructure has gotten a lot of use. We get tracked like park animals in Portland, so with a little effort, one could determine the effect of additional infrastructure. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/545858

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:52:55 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:35:36 PM UTC-7, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
(Rant, rave, mumble, speculate, etc...)

The idea has worked in cities in The Netherlands and Denmark -- and probably other
flat European cities. It is hard to tell if it has worked in PDX since the
influx of cyclists pre-existed the creation of infrastructure, although the
later-created close-in infrastructure has gotten a lot of use. We get tracked
like park animals in Portland, so with a little effort, one could determine
the effect of additional infrastructure.
https://www.portlandoregon.gov/trans...article/545858
-- Jay Beattie.

Nice tangled mess of statistics. In order to preserve my sanity, I'll
refrain from tying to correlate that report with whatever might he
happening in Stevenage UK.

Maybe a back of the envelope sanity check might help.

Stevenage seems to have 13 bicycle shops:
http://www.stevenage.org.uk/bike-shops/
of which only 4 offer repairs:
http://www.stevenage.org.uk/bicycle-repairs/
For a town of 84,000 population, that's one shop for every 6,500
residents.

For a population of 84,000, how many bicycles per year could these
bicycle shops expect to sell? For all of England:
http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics
http://www.cyclinguk.org/resources/cycling-uk-cycling-statistics#How%20many%20cycles%20are%20sold%20in%2 0Great%20Britain?
Not counting e-bikes, that is 3.5 million bicycles sold per year for a
population of 53 million. So, everyone gets a new bicycle every 15
years. Either UK bicycles have a very short half life, a few people
buy hundreds of bicycles, or everyone owns more than one bicycle.
Assuming the same rate of replacement for Stevenage, 1/15th of the
population will be buying a new bicycle every year or:
84,000 / 15 = 5,600 bicycles
sold each year in Stevenage. However, there are 13 bicycle shops,
each of which will sell:
5,600 / 13 = 430 bicycles/year
or
430 / 12 = 36 bicycles/month
Not very good but possibly survivable for a small shop, especially if
they are expensive machines.

So, with 430 new bicycles being added to the Stevenage ridership every
year, where do these bicycles go? I find it difficult to believe that
the trails are empty when there 1.2 new bicycles added to the
ridership every day. Do they only ride at night when nobody will
notice? Or are the bicycles stolen immediately after they're sold?
Or, perhaps something is wrong with the original story?



--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558