|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
On 10/5/2010 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
I've split my response into two posts. Your ultra-long post ranged over too many topics. On Oct 5, 10:38 am, Peter wrote: The anti-facility arguments can be categorized as: Cost In reality, even the most highly "facilitated" European cities have approximately 1 meter of facility per resident. Cost of "facilities," in the broad sense, varies tremendously. I believe the cost of paint on the road is negligible. However, I think the benefits are often less. The facilities that are really expensive are the faux-"transportational" rail-to-trail bike paths, at perhaps a million dollars per mile. Yes, but this category isn't the primary focus of current US bicycle plans. For the cost of a mile of recreational bike path, we could install bike parking racks all across town, or give bikes to thousands of inner city school kids, or make every traffic light in the city reliably respond to the presence of a cyclist, or print a million bike transportation maps. Yes, but you paint somewhat of a false choice. All the urban separate tracks that I'm familiar with perform "dual duty", primarily transportational on weekdays, recreational on weekends, a pattern shared by many/most roads. Rural and suburban R-T-T projects aren't really anything I'm interested in, one way or another. The other facility cost, BTW, is maintenance - like the cost of sweeping bike lanes. As I've mentioned before, our city sweeps twice per year. They barely afford that. Bike lanes here would fill with gravel and glass within two weeks, and most of the pavement would be unrideable until the next sweeping. Sounds more like speculation than experience. For whatever reason, I haven't seem this in the (limited) bike lanes here in Boston. Our "bottle bill" ($0.05 deposit) went a long way to eliminate glass in the street, and we don't seem to have a problem with gravel at all. The economic case for urban biking wither exists or doesn't. If it does, the costs include both construction and maintenance. Vague criticisms have been made against Portland's expenditures, to the extent that the numbers I've seen reflect costs and utilization, I don't see the problem. It's no boondoggle. And that is significant. We could discuss details of studies, but if that accurately describes the results, there is no justification for claims that facilities clearly increase safety. Yet that is the line that's being promoted. It's dishonest. I think you put the cart before the horse. The rationale for facilities is that people like them. The challenge is to mitigate any safety consequences. That has been successfully done, repeatedly. Especially when those countries have an entire array of incentives for cycling, and disincentives for motoring! It's amazing how many people think "Copenhagen has bike lanes, so if we put in bike lanes, we'll be just like Copenhagen!" Even the most enthusiastic proponents seem to realize that Copenhagen and Amsterdam have some characteristics that won't be duplicated here soon, if ever. Despite that, the incentives in the US are growing (congestion, fuel prices, parking, tolls and access fees, etc.). The narrow economics are compelling enough to support perhaps a 10x increase in urban cycling, the broader economics (health, environmental costs, etc.) much more. Urban cycling in the US might never grow beyond a 10% trip share, but even that would have a huge impact on transport patterns and neighborhoods. Unnecessary and inconvenient Facilities are often held to "make things worse" (convenience-wise) for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. This reaction is (necessarily), among cyclists, from those who are accustomed to riding without them. That reaction also occurs among motorists. Examples are pretty easy to find. For one, in European cities where there are separate signal phases for various modes, it's obvious that wait times increase and throughput decreases. While wait times may increase for one segment, they decrease for another. It isn't obvious that throughput decreases or transit times necessarily increase. One of the big appeals of urban cycling is convenience. Separate facilities mean a cyclist need not be paced (slowed down) by auto congestion. Riding in traffic gives you all the drawbacks (and then some) of motoring. In gridlock, I don't want to "share the road", I want my own, or at least my own lane. And whatever you say, I don't like being confined to a bike path that places stop signs at every #*@! driveway that crosses the path, in case a motorist may someday want to enter that driveway - but I've had to ride on such facilities. In the unlikely case that such facilities become implemented, Id suggest that you join me in seeking alternate routes. What vehicular cyclists don't seem to fully understand is that a lot of cyclists (existing and would-be, male and female, but particularly would-be females) don't want to rub elbows with car traffic. They don't want to "negotiate", even with the skills, they particularly don't want to "altercate", or deal with mechanical, weather or physical mishaps. Two points. First, no realistic amount of bike facilities will remove the need to mix with car traffic. You literally cannot build a parallel set of transportation facilities - or a parallel universe - for cyclists to access every place they may need to go. The roads already do that most everywhere, and there isn't room for another such network. So when the bike path ends, the cyclist _will_ have to mix with car traffic. Yes, this is well known. I think it was the Dill study that observed that the distance to the facility was one of the most important factors in the rate of cycling. That's certainly been true in my personal experience. It's much like bus and train routes. If you plan to use such facilities, it behooves you to locate nearby. Second, you're concentrating on women and on the fantasy of greatly increasing the percentage who commute by bike. But it is, I think, fantasy, unless you intend to adopt _all_ the characteristics of Amsterdam or Copenhagen. Even in hallowed Portland, the percentage of women to cycle to work is tiny. My daughter - who's enough of a cyclist to have initiated our ride across the continent - rarely rode to work when she lived in that city. Why? Because it was 10 miles and took too long. Portland is running at about 1/3 female. That's quite a bit better than the average metro area. The "gender gap" is only an indicator, and as such, indicates in Portland's case, they still have a long way to go. If some massive, earth-shaking change occurs to make driving cars extremely impractical, _then_ you'll see a really significant increase in bike mode. But you'll never see even 30% in America, and probably not in any big American city. Perhaps not. Portland's goal is 20%. As for "massive, earth-shaking changes", I remember the "oil shocks" of the 70's quite vividly. There's every possibility that the next round will be more severe, and the odds of a shock are a near certainty. It won't be OPEC this time, but it will be something, India & China are sucking up what little slack was in the system, if the West ever gets its economy back on the tracks, the crisis is inevitable. $5/gal gas was unthinkable in the US until fairly recently, now $10/gal gas is likely. It may creep up or come on suddenly -- the invisible hand is the default controller. It doesn't have to be that way. Cycling isn't a 100% solution, but the 100% solution, if one is found, is most likely to be a bunch of 5 & 10% solutions in aggregate. So people who claim (as you have, IIRC) that vehicular cycling doesn't work because it hasn't tremendously increased bike mode share, are simultaneously misunderstanding VC's purpose, and wildly fantasizing about their alternative. VC has had its day in court, it has dominated bike advocacy for decades. It's time to try something new. Maybe no American city will ever approach Amsterdam or Copenhagen, or even Berlin, but we can surely improve upon US cycling's dismal record. LAB has changed course, FHWA is being challenged by NACTO, the times they are a-changing. VC was fine, as far as it went, but it just didn't go very far. It's a product that just doesn't have much curb appeal. Beyond that, it's very much a relic of the auto age, it's a "drive your bike!" mindset, crafted at a time when auto-centricity was unassailable, and cycling in disrepute. VC is a good technique, but a poor ideology, it's time to dump the unnecessary baggage, or at least demote it from religious status. It may be that the country that "put a man on the moon" will figure out a way to keep auto dominance going for decades to come, or, more likely, it may be that America will be forced, kicking and screaming, to fundamentally rethink transportation (following Europe and Asia). In any case, I think it's prudent to hedge our bets, less of a "build it, and they will come", more of a "build it, and it will be there if you need it". It's your patriotic duty to support bike lanes, Frank! |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/5/2010 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: I've split my response into two posts. Your ultra-long post ranged over too many topics. On Oct 5, 10:38 am, Peter wrote: The anti-facility arguments can be categorized as: Cost In reality, even the most highly "facilitated" European cities have approximately 1 meter of facility per resident. Cost of "facilities," in the broad sense, varies tremendously. I believe the cost of paint on the road is negligible. However, I think the benefits are often less. The facilities that are really expensive are the faux-"transportational" rail-to-trail bike paths, at perhaps a million dollars per mile. Yes, but this category isn't the primary focus of current US bicycle plans. For the cost of a mile of recreational bike path, we could install bike parking racks all across town, or give bikes to thousands of inner city school kids, or make every traffic light in the city reliably respond to the presence of a cyclist, or print a million bike transportation maps. Yes, but you paint somewhat of a false choice. All the urban separate tracks that I'm familiar with perform "dual duty", primarily transportational on weekdays, recreational on weekends, a pattern shared by many/most roads. Rural and suburban R-T-T projects aren't really anything I'm interested in, one way or another. The other facility cost, BTW, is maintenance - like the cost of sweeping bike lanes. As I've mentioned before, our city sweeps twice per year. They barely afford that. Bike lanes here would fill with gravel and glass within two weeks, and most of the pavement would be unrideable until the next sweeping. Sounds more like speculation than experience. For whatever reason, I haven't seem this in the (limited) bike lanes here in Boston. Our "bottle bill" ($0.05 deposit) went a long way to eliminate glass in the street, and we don't seem to have a problem with gravel at all. The economic case for urban biking wither exists or doesn't. If it does, the costs include both construction and maintenance. Vague criticisms have been made against Portland's expenditures, to the extent that the numbers I've seen reflect costs and utilization, I don't see the problem. It's no boondoggle. And that is significant. We could discuss details of studies, but if that accurately describes the results, there is no justification for claims that facilities clearly increase safety. Yet that is the line that's being promoted. It's dishonest. I think you put the cart before the horse. The rationale for facilities is that people like them. The challenge is to mitigate any safety consequences. That has been successfully done, repeatedly. Especially when those countries have an entire array of incentives for cycling, and disincentives for motoring! It's amazing how many people think "Copenhagen has bike lanes, so if we put in bike lanes, we'll be just like Copenhagen!" Even the most enthusiastic proponents seem to realize that Copenhagen and Amsterdam have some characteristics that won't be duplicated here soon, if ever. Despite that, the incentives in the US are growing (congestion, fuel prices, parking, tolls and access fees, etc.). The narrow economics are compelling enough to support perhaps a 10x increase in urban cycling, the broader economics (health, environmental costs, etc.) much more. Urban cycling in the US might never grow beyond a 10% trip share, but even that would have a huge impact on transport patterns and neighborhoods. Unnecessary and inconvenient Facilities are often held to "make things worse" (convenience-wise) for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. This reaction is (necessarily), among cyclists, from those who are accustomed to riding without them. That reaction also occurs among motorists. Examples are pretty easy to find. For one, in European cities where there are separate signal phases for various modes, it's obvious that wait times increase and throughput decreases. While wait times may increase for one segment, they decrease for another. It isn't obvious that throughput decreases or transit times necessarily increase. One of the big appeals of urban cycling is convenience. Separate facilities mean a cyclist need not be paced (slowed down) by auto congestion. Riding in traffic gives you all the drawbacks (and then some) of motoring. In gridlock, I don't want to "share the road", I want my own, or at least my own lane. And whatever you say, I don't like being confined to a bike path that places stop signs at every #*@! driveway that crosses the path, in case a motorist may someday want to enter that driveway - but I've had to ride on such facilities. In the unlikely case that such facilities become implemented, Id suggest that you join me in seeking alternate routes. What vehicular cyclists don't seem to fully understand is that a lot of cyclists (existing and would-be, male and female, but particularly would-be females) don't want to rub elbows with car traffic. They don't want to "negotiate", even with the skills, they particularly don't want to "altercate", or deal with mechanical, weather or physical mishaps. Two points. First, no realistic amount of bike facilities will remove the need to mix with car traffic. You literally cannot build a parallel set of transportation facilities - or a parallel universe - for cyclists to access every place they may need to go. The roads already do that most everywhere, and there isn't room for another such network. So when the bike path ends, the cyclist _will_ have to mix with car traffic. Yes, this is well known. I think it was the Dill study that observed that the distance to the facility was one of the most important factors in the rate of cycling. That's certainly been true in my personal experience. It's much like bus and train routes. If you plan to use such facilities, it behooves you to locate nearby. Second, you're concentrating on women and on the fantasy of greatly increasing the percentage who commute by bike. But it is, I think, fantasy, unless you intend to adopt _all_ the characteristics of Amsterdam or Copenhagen. Even in hallowed Portland, the percentage of women to cycle to work is tiny. My daughter - who's enough of a cyclist to have initiated our ride across the continent - rarely rode to work when she lived in that city. Why? Because it was 10 miles and took too long. Portland is running at about 1/3 female. That's quite a bit better than the average metro area. The "gender gap" is only an indicator, and as such, indicates in Portland's case, they still have a long way to go. If some massive, earth-shaking change occurs to make driving cars extremely impractical, _then_ you'll see a really significant increase in bike mode. But you'll never see even 30% in America, and probably not in any big American city. Perhaps not. Portland's goal is 20%. As for "massive, earth-shaking changes", I remember the "oil shocks" of the 70's quite vividly. There's every possibility that the next round will be more severe, and the odds of a shock are a near certainty. It won't be OPEC this time, but it will be something, India & China are sucking up what little slack was in the system, if the West ever gets its economy back on the tracks, the crisis is inevitable. $5/gal gas was unthinkable in the US until fairly recently, now $10/gal gas is likely. It may creep up or come on suddenly -- the invisible hand is the default controller. It doesn't have to be that way. Cycling isn't a 100% solution, but the 100% solution, if one is found, is most likely to be a bunch of 5 & 10% solutions in aggregate. So people who claim (as you have, IIRC) that vehicular cycling doesn't work because it hasn't tremendously increased bike mode share, are simultaneously misunderstanding VC's purpose, and wildly fantasizing about their alternative. VC has had its day in court, it has dominated bike advocacy for decades. It's time to try something new. Maybe no American city will ever approach Amsterdam or Copenhagen, or even Berlin, but we can surely improve upon US cycling's dismal record. LAB has changed course, FHWA is being challenged by NACTO, the times they are a-changing. VC was fine, as far as it went, but it just didn't go very far. It's a product that just doesn't have much curb appeal. Beyond that, it's very much a relic of the auto age, it's a "drive your bike!" mindset, crafted at a time when auto-centricity was unassailable, and cycling in disrepute. VC is a good technique, but a poor ideology, it's time to dump the unnecessary baggage, or at least demote it from religious status. It may be that the country that "put a man on the moon" will figure out a way to keep auto dominance going for decades to come, or, more likely, it may be that America will be forced, kicking and screaming, to fundamentally rethink transportation (following Europe and Asia). In any case, I think it's prudent to hedge our bets, less of a "build it, and they will come", more of a "build it, and it will be there if you need it". It's your patriotic duty to support bike lanes, Frank! "$5/gal gas was unthinkable in the US until fairly recently, now $10/gal gas is likely. It may creep up or come on suddenly -- the invisible hand is the default controller. It doesn't have to be that way. " What's wrong with commodity prices fluctuating with trends in supply and demand? I don't have any specific problem with a marketplace that values gasoline at $10/gal. Whatever. Gasoline is a state subsidized 5c/liter in Iran which is a model I find unpalatable. Would you prefer a stable low price with the difference added into your tax bill? I would not. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
On 10/6/2010 7:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
Peter Cole wrote: On 10/5/2010 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: I've split my response into two posts. Your ultra-long post ranged over too many topics. On Oct 5, 10:38 am, Peter wrote: The anti-facility arguments can be categorized as: Cost In reality, even the most highly "facilitated" European cities have approximately 1 meter of facility per resident. Cost of "facilities," in the broad sense, varies tremendously. I believe the cost of paint on the road is negligible. However, I think the benefits are often less. The facilities that are really expensive are the faux-"transportational" rail-to-trail bike paths, at perhaps a million dollars per mile. Yes, but this category isn't the primary focus of current US bicycle plans. For the cost of a mile of recreational bike path, we could install bike parking racks all across town, or give bikes to thousands of inner city school kids, or make every traffic light in the city reliably respond to the presence of a cyclist, or print a million bike transportation maps. Yes, but you paint somewhat of a false choice. All the urban separate tracks that I'm familiar with perform "dual duty", primarily transportational on weekdays, recreational on weekends, a pattern shared by many/most roads. Rural and suburban R-T-T projects aren't really anything I'm interested in, one way or another. The other facility cost, BTW, is maintenance - like the cost of sweeping bike lanes. As I've mentioned before, our city sweeps twice per year. They barely afford that. Bike lanes here would fill with gravel and glass within two weeks, and most of the pavement would be unrideable until the next sweeping. Sounds more like speculation than experience. For whatever reason, I haven't seem this in the (limited) bike lanes here in Boston. Our "bottle bill" ($0.05 deposit) went a long way to eliminate glass in the street, and we don't seem to have a problem with gravel at all. The economic case for urban biking wither exists or doesn't. If it does, the costs include both construction and maintenance. Vague criticisms have been made against Portland's expenditures, to the extent that the numbers I've seen reflect costs and utilization, I don't see the problem. It's no boondoggle. And that is significant. We could discuss details of studies, but if that accurately describes the results, there is no justification for claims that facilities clearly increase safety. Yet that is the line that's being promoted. It's dishonest. I think you put the cart before the horse. The rationale for facilities is that people like them. The challenge is to mitigate any safety consequences. That has been successfully done, repeatedly. Especially when those countries have an entire array of incentives for cycling, and disincentives for motoring! It's amazing how many people think "Copenhagen has bike lanes, so if we put in bike lanes, we'll be just like Copenhagen!" Even the most enthusiastic proponents seem to realize that Copenhagen and Amsterdam have some characteristics that won't be duplicated here soon, if ever. Despite that, the incentives in the US are growing (congestion, fuel prices, parking, tolls and access fees, etc.). The narrow economics are compelling enough to support perhaps a 10x increase in urban cycling, the broader economics (health, environmental costs, etc.) much more. Urban cycling in the US might never grow beyond a 10% trip share, but even that would have a huge impact on transport patterns and neighborhoods. Unnecessary and inconvenient Facilities are often held to "make things worse" (convenience-wise) for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. This reaction is (necessarily), among cyclists, from those who are accustomed to riding without them. That reaction also occurs among motorists. Examples are pretty easy to find. For one, in European cities where there are separate signal phases for various modes, it's obvious that wait times increase and throughput decreases. While wait times may increase for one segment, they decrease for another. It isn't obvious that throughput decreases or transit times necessarily increase. One of the big appeals of urban cycling is convenience. Separate facilities mean a cyclist need not be paced (slowed down) by auto congestion. Riding in traffic gives you all the drawbacks (and then some) of motoring. In gridlock, I don't want to "share the road", I want my own, or at least my own lane. And whatever you say, I don't like being confined to a bike path that places stop signs at every #*@! driveway that crosses the path, in case a motorist may someday want to enter that driveway - but I've had to ride on such facilities. In the unlikely case that such facilities become implemented, Id suggest that you join me in seeking alternate routes. What vehicular cyclists don't seem to fully understand is that a lot of cyclists (existing and would-be, male and female, but particularly would-be females) don't want to rub elbows with car traffic. They don't want to "negotiate", even with the skills, they particularly don't want to "altercate", or deal with mechanical, weather or physical mishaps. Two points. First, no realistic amount of bike facilities will remove the need to mix with car traffic. You literally cannot build a parallel set of transportation facilities - or a parallel universe - for cyclists to access every place they may need to go. The roads already do that most everywhere, and there isn't room for another such network. So when the bike path ends, the cyclist _will_ have to mix with car traffic. Yes, this is well known. I think it was the Dill study that observed that the distance to the facility was one of the most important factors in the rate of cycling. That's certainly been true in my personal experience. It's much like bus and train routes. If you plan to use such facilities, it behooves you to locate nearby. Second, you're concentrating on women and on the fantasy of greatly increasing the percentage who commute by bike. But it is, I think, fantasy, unless you intend to adopt _all_ the characteristics of Amsterdam or Copenhagen. Even in hallowed Portland, the percentage of women to cycle to work is tiny. My daughter - who's enough of a cyclist to have initiated our ride across the continent - rarely rode to work when she lived in that city. Why? Because it was 10 miles and took too long. Portland is running at about 1/3 female. That's quite a bit better than the average metro area. The "gender gap" is only an indicator, and as such, indicates in Portland's case, they still have a long way to go. If some massive, earth-shaking change occurs to make driving cars extremely impractical, _then_ you'll see a really significant increase in bike mode. But you'll never see even 30% in America, and probably not in any big American city. Perhaps not. Portland's goal is 20%. As for "massive, earth-shaking changes", I remember the "oil shocks" of the 70's quite vividly. There's every possibility that the next round will be more severe, and the odds of a shock are a near certainty. It won't be OPEC this time, but it will be something, India & China are sucking up what little slack was in the system, if the West ever gets its economy back on the tracks, the crisis is inevitable. $5/gal gas was unthinkable in the US until fairly recently, now $10/gal gas is likely. It may creep up or come on suddenly -- the invisible hand is the default controller. It doesn't have to be that way. Cycling isn't a 100% solution, but the 100% solution, if one is found, is most likely to be a bunch of 5 & 10% solutions in aggregate. So people who claim (as you have, IIRC) that vehicular cycling doesn't work because it hasn't tremendously increased bike mode share, are simultaneously misunderstanding VC's purpose, and wildly fantasizing about their alternative. VC has had its day in court, it has dominated bike advocacy for decades. It's time to try something new. Maybe no American city will ever approach Amsterdam or Copenhagen, or even Berlin, but we can surely improve upon US cycling's dismal record. LAB has changed course, FHWA is being challenged by NACTO, the times they are a-changing. VC was fine, as far as it went, but it just didn't go very far. It's a product that just doesn't have much curb appeal. Beyond that, it's very much a relic of the auto age, it's a "drive your bike!" mindset, crafted at a time when auto-centricity was unassailable, and cycling in disrepute. VC is a good technique, but a poor ideology, it's time to dump the unnecessary baggage, or at least demote it from religious status. It may be that the country that "put a man on the moon" will figure out a way to keep auto dominance going for decades to come, or, more likely, it may be that America will be forced, kicking and screaming, to fundamentally rethink transportation (following Europe and Asia). In any case, I think it's prudent to hedge our bets, less of a "build it, and they will come", more of a "build it, and it will be there if you need it". It's your patriotic duty to support bike lanes, Frank! "$5/gal gas was unthinkable in the US until fairly recently, now $10/gal gas is likely. It may creep up or come on suddenly -- the invisible hand is the default controller. It doesn't have to be that way. " What's wrong with commodity prices fluctuating with trends in supply and demand? I don't have any specific problem with a marketplace that values gasoline at $10/gal. Whatever. Gasoline is a state subsidized 5c/liter in Iran which is a model I find unpalatable. Would you prefer a stable low price with the difference added into your tax bill? I would not. Actually, gas prices in Iran are $0.10/l for the first 60l a month, $0.40/l beyond that. In total, it's estimated that the average Iranian family gets ~$4,000/yr in fuel subsidies. I don't know how the Iranian policies came to be, or how long they've been in place, but apparently the subsidies are being phased out -- previous attempts resulted in riots. http://business.maktoob.com/20090000...ts/Article.htm Price stabilization could be achieved via subsidy to a fixed price, or taxation to a fixed price. I'm not arguing for either. In theory, there's nothing wrong with the market setting gas prices, and given the globalization of that market, little practical that can be done to control it in any other way, too many players in both supply and demand cartels. The real problem is inelasticity in supply and demand. The global system (before the financial meltdown) was running so close to maximum capacity (wellhead, refinery and transport), that any small hiccup in supply could not easily be made up from reserve capacity. Similarly, the demand side is rigid, with very little ability to modulate short-term demand. Since we (Americans, as net importers) can't control supply of this critical commodity, it is in our best interest to develop the ability to modulate demand short-term as well as reduce it long-term. We currently control 25% of the global demand, which gives us limited (and declining) global price influence. For all intents, an unstable oil price is like a rapidly fluctuating variable tax -- one that is paid to foreign governments. In addition to the long-term transfer of wealth issues, there are disproportionate short term oil-shock economic disruptions, driven by supply fluctuations or even threats of them, amplified by futures speculation (the invisible hand job). The whole system, with geopolitical instabilities, vulnerability to terrorism and infrastructure calamities, is a house of cards with mood swings -- and it's going to get worse, stability-wise. If the global economy can build in more demand elasticity, the system will become more stable. Unfortunately, the long term problem of lowering absolute demand, works against this goal -- when you have all the inefficiencies wrung out, there's little slack left to be absorbed during a supply disruption/price spike. Anything a society can do to soften the economic blow of short-term energy supply/price fluctuations will have a strong economic case. We're highly leveraged on energy (nail, shoe, horse, battle, war... yadda, yadda). The original justification for the Federal Highway Act was to move troops and materials for national defense. If, during a 70's level energy crisis, 10% of the population could hop on bikes, it wouldn't necessarily save the day by itself, but every bit helps. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
Peter Cole wrote:
On 10/6/2010 7:25 PM, AMuzi wrote: Peter Cole wrote: On 10/5/2010 4:43 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: I've split my response into two posts. Your ultra-long post ranged over too many topics. On Oct 5, 10:38 am, Peter wrote: The anti-facility arguments can be categorized as: Cost In reality, even the most highly "facilitated" European cities have approximately 1 meter of facility per resident. Cost of "facilities," in the broad sense, varies tremendously. I believe the cost of paint on the road is negligible. However, I think the benefits are often less. The facilities that are really expensive are the faux-"transportational" rail-to-trail bike paths, at perhaps a million dollars per mile. Yes, but this category isn't the primary focus of current US bicycle plans. For the cost of a mile of recreational bike path, we could install bike parking racks all across town, or give bikes to thousands of inner city school kids, or make every traffic light in the city reliably respond to the presence of a cyclist, or print a million bike transportation maps. Yes, but you paint somewhat of a false choice. All the urban separate tracks that I'm familiar with perform "dual duty", primarily transportational on weekdays, recreational on weekends, a pattern shared by many/most roads. Rural and suburban R-T-T projects aren't really anything I'm interested in, one way or another. The other facility cost, BTW, is maintenance - like the cost of sweeping bike lanes. As I've mentioned before, our city sweeps twice per year. They barely afford that. Bike lanes here would fill with gravel and glass within two weeks, and most of the pavement would be unrideable until the next sweeping. Sounds more like speculation than experience. For whatever reason, I haven't seem this in the (limited) bike lanes here in Boston. Our "bottle bill" ($0.05 deposit) went a long way to eliminate glass in the street, and we don't seem to have a problem with gravel at all. The economic case for urban biking wither exists or doesn't. If it does, the costs include both construction and maintenance. Vague criticisms have been made against Portland's expenditures, to the extent that the numbers I've seen reflect costs and utilization, I don't see the problem. It's no boondoggle. And that is significant. We could discuss details of studies, but if that accurately describes the results, there is no justification for claims that facilities clearly increase safety. Yet that is the line that's being promoted. It's dishonest. I think you put the cart before the horse. The rationale for facilities is that people like them. The challenge is to mitigate any safety consequences. That has been successfully done, repeatedly. Especially when those countries have an entire array of incentives for cycling, and disincentives for motoring! It's amazing how many people think "Copenhagen has bike lanes, so if we put in bike lanes, we'll be just like Copenhagen!" Even the most enthusiastic proponents seem to realize that Copenhagen and Amsterdam have some characteristics that won't be duplicated here soon, if ever. Despite that, the incentives in the US are growing (congestion, fuel prices, parking, tolls and access fees, etc.). The narrow economics are compelling enough to support perhaps a 10x increase in urban cycling, the broader economics (health, environmental costs, etc.) much more. Urban cycling in the US might never grow beyond a 10% trip share, but even that would have a huge impact on transport patterns and neighborhoods. Unnecessary and inconvenient Facilities are often held to "make things worse" (convenience-wise) for cyclists, motorists and pedestrians. This reaction is (necessarily), among cyclists, from those who are accustomed to riding without them. That reaction also occurs among motorists. Examples are pretty easy to find. For one, in European cities where there are separate signal phases for various modes, it's obvious that wait times increase and throughput decreases. While wait times may increase for one segment, they decrease for another. It isn't obvious that throughput decreases or transit times necessarily increase. One of the big appeals of urban cycling is convenience. Separate facilities mean a cyclist need not be paced (slowed down) by auto congestion. Riding in traffic gives you all the drawbacks (and then some) of motoring. In gridlock, I don't want to "share the road", I want my own, or at least my own lane. And whatever you say, I don't like being confined to a bike path that places stop signs at every #*@! driveway that crosses the path, in case a motorist may someday want to enter that driveway - but I've had to ride on such facilities. In the unlikely case that such facilities become implemented, Id suggest that you join me in seeking alternate routes. What vehicular cyclists don't seem to fully understand is that a lot of cyclists (existing and would-be, male and female, but particularly would-be females) don't want to rub elbows with car traffic. They don't want to "negotiate", even with the skills, they particularly don't want to "altercate", or deal with mechanical, weather or physical mishaps. Two points. First, no realistic amount of bike facilities will remove the need to mix with car traffic. You literally cannot build a parallel set of transportation facilities - or a parallel universe - for cyclists to access every place they may need to go. The roads already do that most everywhere, and there isn't room for another such network. So when the bike path ends, the cyclist _will_ have to mix with car traffic. Yes, this is well known. I think it was the Dill study that observed that the distance to the facility was one of the most important factors in the rate of cycling. That's certainly been true in my personal experience. It's much like bus and train routes. If you plan to use such facilities, it behooves you to locate nearby. Second, you're concentrating on women and on the fantasy of greatly increasing the percentage who commute by bike. But it is, I think, fantasy, unless you intend to adopt _all_ the characteristics of Amsterdam or Copenhagen. Even in hallowed Portland, the percentage of women to cycle to work is tiny. My daughter - who's enough of a cyclist to have initiated our ride across the continent - rarely rode to work when she lived in that city. Why? Because it was 10 miles and took too long. Portland is running at about 1/3 female. That's quite a bit better than the average metro area. The "gender gap" is only an indicator, and as such, indicates in Portland's case, they still have a long way to go. If some massive, earth-shaking change occurs to make driving cars extremely impractical, _then_ you'll see a really significant increase in bike mode. But you'll never see even 30% in America, and probably not in any big American city. Perhaps not. Portland's goal is 20%. As for "massive, earth-shaking changes", I remember the "oil shocks" of the 70's quite vividly. There's every possibility that the next round will be more severe, and the odds of a shock are a near certainty. It won't be OPEC this time, but it will be something, India & China are sucking up what little slack was in the system, if the West ever gets its economy back on the tracks, the crisis is inevitable. $5/gal gas was unthinkable in the US until fairly recently, now $10/gal gas is likely. It may creep up or come on suddenly -- the invisible hand is the default controller. It doesn't have to be that way. Cycling isn't a 100% solution, but the 100% solution, if one is found, is most likely to be a bunch of 5 & 10% solutions in aggregate. So people who claim (as you have, IIRC) that vehicular cycling doesn't work because it hasn't tremendously increased bike mode share, are simultaneously misunderstanding VC's purpose, and wildly fantasizing about their alternative. VC has had its day in court, it has dominated bike advocacy for decades. It's time to try something new. Maybe no American city will ever approach Amsterdam or Copenhagen, or even Berlin, but we can surely improve upon US cycling's dismal record. LAB has changed course, FHWA is being challenged by NACTO, the times they are a-changing. VC was fine, as far as it went, but it just didn't go very far. It's a product that just doesn't have much curb appeal. Beyond that, it's very much a relic of the auto age, it's a "drive your bike!" mindset, crafted at a time when auto-centricity was unassailable, and cycling in disrepute. VC is a good technique, but a poor ideology, it's time to dump the unnecessary baggage, or at least demote it from religious status. It may be that the country that "put a man on the moon" will figure out a way to keep auto dominance going for decades to come, or, more likely, it may be that America will be forced, kicking and screaming, to fundamentally rethink transportation (following Europe and Asia). In any case, I think it's prudent to hedge our bets, less of a "build it, and they will come", more of a "build it, and it will be there if you need it". It's your patriotic duty to support bike lanes, Frank! "$5/gal gas was unthinkable in the US until fairly recently, now $10/gal gas is likely. It may creep up or come on suddenly -- the invisible hand is the default controller. It doesn't have to be that way. " What's wrong with commodity prices fluctuating with trends in supply and demand? I don't have any specific problem with a marketplace that values gasoline at $10/gal. Whatever. Gasoline is a state subsidized 5c/liter in Iran which is a model I find unpalatable. Would you prefer a stable low price with the difference added into your tax bill? I would not. Actually, gas prices in Iran are $0.10/l for the first 60l a month, $0.40/l beyond that. In total, it's estimated that the average Iranian family gets ~$4,000/yr in fuel subsidies. I don't know how the Iranian policies came to be, or how long they've been in place, but apparently the subsidies are being phased out -- previous attempts resulted in riots. http://business.maktoob.com/20090000...ts/Article.htm Price stabilization could be achieved via subsidy to a fixed price, or taxation to a fixed price. I'm not arguing for either. In theory, there's nothing wrong with the market setting gas prices, and given the globalization of that market, little practical that can be done to control it in any other way, too many players in both supply and demand cartels. The real problem is inelasticity in supply and demand. The global system (before the financial meltdown) was running so close to maximum capacity (wellhead, refinery and transport), that any small hiccup in supply could not easily be made up from reserve capacity. Similarly, the demand side is rigid, with very little ability to modulate short-term demand. Since we (Americans, as net importers) can't control supply of this critical commodity, it is in our best interest to develop the ability to modulate demand short-term as well as reduce it long-term. We currently control 25% of the global demand, which gives us limited (and declining) global price influence. For all intents, an unstable oil price is like a rapidly fluctuating variable tax -- one that is paid to foreign governments. In addition to the long-term transfer of wealth issues, there are disproportionate short term oil-shock economic disruptions, driven by supply fluctuations or even threats of them, amplified by futures speculation (the invisible hand job). The whole system, with geopolitical instabilities, vulnerability to terrorism and infrastructure calamities, is a house of cards with mood swings -- and it's going to get worse, stability-wise. If the global economy can build in more demand elasticity, the system will become more stable. Unfortunately, the long term problem of lowering absolute demand, works against this goal -- when you have all the inefficiencies wrung out, there's little slack left to be absorbed during a supply disruption/price spike. Anything a society can do to soften the economic blow of short-term energy supply/price fluctuations will have a strong economic case. We're highly leveraged on energy (nail, shoe, horse, battle, war... yadda, yadda). The original justification for the Federal Highway Act was to move troops and materials for national defense. If, during a 70's level energy crisis, 10% of the population could hop on bikes, it wouldn't necessarily save the day by itself, but every bit helps. The prices of tomatoes, wheat, oil, heroin and everything else fluctuate with changes in supply and demand. And locally with distribution anomalies. Meh. I can't see this as a problem. When prices rise, some purchases will be deferred or canceled until supply equals demand. Oil isn't special. Big deal. Where we might agree is that if oil is allowed to rise in price without artifice perhaps people would use less of it or at least use it more wisely and/or effectively. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Before & after bike ghettos
On 10/7/2010 1:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
The prices of tomatoes, wheat, oil, heroin and everything else fluctuate with changes in supply and demand. And locally with distribution anomalies. Meh. No, they don't really, at least for staples, here in the US and EU. There's a historical reason for that. I can't see this as a problem. When prices rise, some purchases will be deferred or canceled until supply equals demand. Oil isn't special. Big deal. Oil is special, unlike tomatoes, in that the industrial world runs on it. Oil price spikes trigger recessions. Where we might agree is that if oil is allowed to rise in price without artifice perhaps people would use less of it or at least use it more wisely and/or effectively. It's the volatility that's the problem. Market price fluctuations are natural, as are hurricanes and forest fires, that doesn't mean we don't prepare for them. Inelasticities in supply and demand create price instability. Sure, the market will set rational prices long-term, but as the man said: in the long run, we're all dead. There's a difference between subsidies and insurance. One tilts the playing field, the other smooths out the bumps. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Before & after bike ghettos | [email protected] | General | 8 | October 7th 10 04:39 PM |
Before & after bike ghettos | Peter Cole[_2_] | General | 0 | October 6th 10 01:20 PM |
Before & after bike ghettos | Chalo | General | 13 | October 1st 10 05:01 PM |
Before & after bike ghettos | Peter Cole[_2_] | General | 1 | September 29th 10 11:45 PM |
For Sale: Bike, Bike, Bike, Bike, Frame, and wheels. | gplama[_137_] | Australia | 53 | July 3rd 07 09:37 AM |