Your gearing is obsolete

On 6/14/2020 7:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 9:42:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 8:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:

For you, Frank, everything is deceit or propaganda if it doesn't fit your agenda...

Baloney. You're constructing grossly over-generalized straw men.

which is sometimes opaque and/or contradictory. You want to increase utility cycling, but you rant against basically any facilities.

Really? And yet, I'm almost solely responsible for some local
facilities, and worked on a small committee that's responsible for
another. I've spoken publicly in favor of another besides those, and I
worked on a statewide committee that funded many more.

If you want to rationally discuss facility benefits and detriments,
let's do it. Don's snipe about them in a rambling rant.

Hardly rambling. I don't recall that you have ever endorsed a bicycle facility. Which ones do you endorse in your community versus which ones were actually built?

And unless you are very wealthy, I doubt that you were solely or primarily responsible for any facility. CABs and clubs give testimony, and elected or appointed officials and their staff make the decisions. Maybe your testimony was super-good.

There used to be a little dirt/mud path that connected the village
center with the dead end of a nice residential collector street.
Actually, the street was a bit disconintuous - after a block or so,
there was another block's worth of dirt path. Decades ago, a streetcar
line ran that way. There's also a water main under it.

I was on a bicycle-pedestrian committee for my village, working on
getting federal "ISTEA" grants. (We got three, an impressive score for a
tiny village.) Anyway, during that time the water company replaced the
pipe and destroyed the little paths. With the permission of the
committee, I wrote the letter to the water company suggesting that they
repair and upgrade the path. They did so willingly, and now it's a very
highly used shortcut into the center of the village.

The other situation was a major bridge over a freeway - or rather, two
parallel bridges, since the eastbound is structurally independent of the
westbound. The westbound bridge has two 12 foot lanes, and had a narrow
raised concrete ... walkway?? I don't know what its intent, but it was
about 8" higher than the roadway, maybe 24" wide, and if someone walked
on it, the guardrail came up to about the height of their thighs.
Tripping would send a person over the rail to the freeway below.

Yet a few people did walk across that bridge, since it connects some
large residential areas with major shopping plazas just 1/4 to 1/2 mile
away.

I heard the bridge was going to get major maintenance, so I began a
campaign to widen the bridge. I wrote letters, my friends wrote letters,
I called people at the MPO (the second in command is one of my
graduates, I've done volunteer work for them, they know me well). I
ended up in a three way phone conference with the second in command,
plus the person in charge of transportation issues. They said it would
be very, very expensive, I said if not done now, it would not get done
for 30 years. They said ODOT was afraid of liability for putting in a
sidewalk because there was no sidewalk east of the bridge. I said widen
the pavement, but don't mark it as a sidewalk or bike lane.

Ultimately they did what I suggested, even though it cost roughly a
hundred thousand dollars, IIRC. They widened the bridge but marked the
extra width with diagonal "keep off" stripes. I still generally take the
right 12 foot lane because, as usual, there's gravel where cars don't
roll. But the walking is much safer, and the biking somewhat safer.

Separated facilities are what account for the NL's high bicycle mode share. There is no question about that...

That's simplistic nonsense, and probably backward. Netherlands' history
and bicycle culture account for its separated facilities. It had high
bike mode share when it had almost no such facilities. And places with
Netherlands-style facilities but without its other attributes still have
tiny mode shares.

WTF? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ng-kindermoord The bike facilities in the NL are of relatively recent origin.

The point you missed is this: If Netherlanders had no strong tradition
of travel without cars, they would not have mounted that campaign. The
quote is "The streets _no longer_ belonged to the people who lived
there." In the U.S., for 100 years (longer than several generations'
memory, the streets never did belong to the people.)

I shouldn't have said anything...

Yes, on several topics.


Those countries with the highest mode shares are not chock-full-o vehicular cyclists. Most are riding in protected facilities of one sort or another or traffic calmed streets. The Amsterdam and Copenhagens of the world.

"The Amsterdam and Copenhagens of the world" is a laughably small
sample, Jay. Why not give an example where cycling culture was not
previously dominant, but where the city or country's traffic is now
dominated by bicycles instead of cars? And where a typical resident can,
and does, get to almost any daily destination via protected facilities?

I'll wait.

Uh (raising hand), Amsterdam. See above.

You ignored the "was not previously dominant" part. Check out Amsterdam
in the 1950s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ4XQElmO_E
If Amsterdam wasn't like that in the 1950s, it wouldn't be as it is today.

I don't know this for a fact, but with the short commutes and added protected bike facilities in NYC and Brooklyn, adding infrastructure here has probably increased bike mode share. https://www.amny.com/transit/nyc-bic...ys-1.11763975/

Perhaps, for a certain value of increase. By now you should know that
increasing from 1.5% to 2% bike mode share is considered a triumph in an
American city. But that's not what I asked. Where are the really
significant increases that are attributable to bike facilities? Hey, how
about Milton Keynes or Stevenage in England? GREAT facilities! But 2%
mode share.


The real question is whether the small increase justifies the expense.

Is that the real question?

"SOME facilities do bring out SOME new cyclists" is probably the lowest
bar possible. It's down there with "Well, helmets must prevent SOME head
injuries!" or "But riding a bike can cause SOME injuries!" or "But Trump
has done SOME good for the U.S." Heck, send me $100,000. I'll invest it
for you and guarantee SOME return.

I'd say the first real question is, what does the country want to
achieve with respect to bike ridership? How much do we want, and why do
we want to do it?

Then I'd ask what is really realistic? Strip away the dreams that more
bicyclists will remove city congestion (Portland is still congested as
hell) or greatly lower greenhouse gases (perhaps it will a tiny bit, but
it would be undetectable - too far down the list to bother with).

And what is realistically achievable? Even magically trendy Portland
can't reach 10% bike mode share among its hip residents. Cleveland,
Jacksonville, Detroit, Los Angeles etc. are absolutely never going to
become Amsterdam.

What are you suggesting? Do nothing but sneer at facilities, helmets, sport riders, etc., etc.?

My first suggestion is to define the problem or the objective, and do it
in concrete, measurable ways. "Get more people on bikes" does not qualify.

So what do you want to do? Reduce or remove traffic congestion, as
Scharf has suggested? Portland hasn't done that in any measurable way.
Perhaps Davis CA has, but it's even more unique than Portland OR.

Do you want to significantly reduce greenhouse gases? My guess [can I
borrow that, Jeff?] is one electric bus is worth 100 bike commuters. If
you take the money Portland put into bike chutes and bought wind farm
shares, it would cut more CO2.

Do you just want people on bikes because it's cool to see people on
bikes? I like seeing people on bikes, except maybe when they're heading
toward me on a head-on collision path. But should society spend fortunes
on stuff that's merely cool?

Tell me your objectives. I'll suggest a strategy or two.

But one thing I'd certainly stop doing is the schizophrenic messaging:
"Bicycling is great for you! It's great for society! But it's SO
DANGEROUS! Don't do it without protective gear!! Don't do it on ordinary
roads!!" That makes zero sense.
In some PDX neighborhoods its 20% bike mode share. High citywide numbers would be hard because of distances and most people not wanting to do 10% climbs from the west side.

If you shrink your focus area to a carefully chosen zone, you can get
wonderful numbers. Between me and three adjacent neighbors, I'm pretty
sure our mode share is over 20%. But that's just coincidence. (It's cool
that the guy who moved in two doors away is a career bike mechanic.)

After all that, if you finally have a realistic bike mode share goal for
realistic reasons, ask what's the best way of achieving it. It's not
going to be spending a million dollars a mile for "protected" bike
chutes that violate fundamental rules of traffic movement.

If you weren't so intent on arguing with me, you'd admit that.

I'm not intent on arguing with you. Having done much of he same sort of advocacy work, albeit not bike club-based (because I hate the officiousness and showing up at meetings in the same dopey discount jerseys)...

sigh Your portrayal of at least our bike club is way off. Not that I'm
as involved as I once was.

and living in a city that is infrastructure crazy and has tons of cyclists, I know that some infrastructure is good and some is bad...

Yes. So why mock me when I mention what's bad? Must I promise to mention
what's good whenever I see it? Or _if_ I see it?

(Today's ride featured me avoiding a short bike lane. I actually didn't
know it was a bike lane until riding by it with a friend a week or two
ago. She said "No, really, it has bike lane markings under all that
gravel. Didn't you see the 'Bike Lane Ends' sign at the intersection?")

... and my views on what is bad are not necessarily shared by exactly the type of cyclists you champion -- plain folks out to buy a gallon of milk at the Piggly Wiggly.

That's actually a significant problem with bike advocacy. "Plain folks
on bikes" are the ones who think "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility." I've mentioned before various facilities that before-after
data clearly show big increases in crashes; but users in surveys say "I
feel safer." In fact, people like John Pucher, Roger Geller, etc. make a
lot of hay about people's feelings, even when those feelings are wrong.

You think you're the only right one.

"Only"? Seriously, do you think I'm not in contact with lots of other
people who share my views? They tend to be people who have gasp!
studied the relevant data, on whatever topic you choose.


What is Youngstown's bike mode share? Not seeing Youngstown on the list. http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/2020-...ngs-ridership/ Its wet even in June, and although we don't have the dreadful Ohio winters, we still ride in snow. https://i1.wp.com/usa.streetsblog.or...8314be95bf.jpg Day in. Day out. We're hardy Americans. So if you're not going to build facilities, how are you going to Youngstowners on bikes? Are you going to call them all Nancies and wussies? If so, can I help? That sounds like fun.

Youngstown's bike mode share is near zero. Interestingly, even almost
all avid riders here don't choose to bike to work or for utility. Sound
familiar? (Maybe it's because they, too, hate bike bags??)

But what if Youngstown put in some quasi-protected bike lanes? What if
the city started a "Biking is really cool and good for the environment!"
publicity campaign? How about an official "Bike to Work Day" with free
breakfast, giveaway trinkets, lots of publicity?

The bike mode share would still be near zero. Those things have happened
either here or in cities within my riding area. They've made no
detectable difference.

Fashion is weird and powerful. It's also very hard to control. It
happens on its own accord, with perhaps influence from the fundamental
culture of the area.

Here's a clue: I've never, ever seen a bumper sticker saying "Keep
Youngstown Weird."

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2020 1:20 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:18:02 -0700 (PDT) schrieb Sir Ridesalot

The biggest problem I see with bicycle paths is the LACK of
infrastructure to bicycle to them.

The two biggest problems with bicycle paths are, these either go from
nowhere to nowhere, or they put the cyclist on the wrong side of
traffic.

Bicycle path enthusiasts from all over the world have a solution,
though: just dig a canal from here to there, fill it with water, frame
it with bicyclce paths, and the bicycle traffic will come. It did work
in the Netherlands, so it certainly will work for the steep roads in
your home town, too!



The mayor of the town I used to live in suggested building a canal from the
riverfront to the downtown centre, saying that it would promote tourism.
What he failed to account for was the grade between the start and end
points :-)

Oh come on! Locks in action are fun to watch! And they probably wouldn't
increase the cost more than 100 fold.



Don’t forget the pumping plant to get the water to the top of the canal.

On 6/14/2020 9:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 5:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 16:37:06 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 9:42:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 8:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 10:14:16 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 1:02 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 6:50:45 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 9:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2020 11:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2020 2:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2020 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2020 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 4:41:57 PM UTC+2, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2020 6:09 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 12:06:56 AM UTC+2, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2020 4:32 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 9:35:56 PM UTC+2,
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 11:13:38 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 7:23:34 PM UTC+2,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2020 11:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://bikerumor.com/2018/06/23/com...nx-gx-x01-xx1/





For those who fondly recall 13~17 freewheels,
there's a new 10~50 cassette!

50 teeth! Wow, I never thought I'd see the day when
my 34 tooth biggest
cog was considered too small.

I'm getting a little out of date. I gotta catch up.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Ah, you give us a voucher to make fun of your dorky
handlebar bag and all the other stuff you bolted to
your bike one more time. Keep up the good work.

You are not a true utility cyclist.Â* Be quiet. You
probably wear a helmet, also known as a head-shackle.

-- Jay Beattie.

I'm certainly not a true utility cyclist. Hauling
gallons of milk or crates of beer seems silly to me if
you have a car on your driveway.

That's interesting. The U.S. currently has an
enthusiastic industry and
publicity machine saying we should build
Netherlands-style bike paths
everywhere.

Why? Because then people will stop driving their cars!


--
- Frank Krygowski

What has that to do with the fact that I prefer using my
car for groceries and not my bike. I only use my bike
for non fun rides if it is more practical.

??? Your question amazes me. You are a direct rebuttal to
their claims.

Of course you don't use your bike if your car is "more
practical." And
as I recall, you mocked things like handlebar bags - so
carrying more
than one liter volume means your car will almost always
be "more
practical." For almost all Americans, that is also true.
They will use
it as an excuse to never bike for utility.

Also, any trip requiring muscular exertion will make
their car "more
practical." Temperatures above 22 C will be too hot to be
practical.
Temperatures below 20 C will be too chilly. Rain, or the
possibility of
rain will have the same effect. So will snow, of course.
And darkness.

The U.S. will never be a bicycling nation. Your own
preference for the
car, except for "sport" rides, even in a nation renowned
for its cycling
culture adds evidence.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Last year:
mileage car: 7500 km
mileage bike(s): 12000 km.

Give me the numbers for utility riding, as opposed to sport
riding.



You're back in the realm of taste and fashion there.

Who's to say that one cyclist's experience is better or
more pure or more admirable than another's? Not me.

My point immediately above was that America's dominant
"taste and fashion" will be driving cars for the foreseeable
future. That's true even if quasi-protected bikeways are
magically built to every destination.

If a 12000 km/year cyclist won't bike to the grocery in a
country famed for world-record bike facilities, the average
American isn't going to do it no matter what gets built in
the right-of-way.

That's fact. Whether it's good or bad can be discussed, but
the good or bad is beside the point.


I disagree.

I think you disagree because you're not understanding my point, or my
context. Perhaps I didn't write clearly enough.

The specific point I was making had nothing to do with practicality of
any type of bike. It was about the propaganda avalanche claiming that IF
we just build the right kind of bike lanes, THEN Americans will switch
from cars to bikes in temendous (or at least, very significant) numbers.
In r.b.tech, that's been espoused mostly by Scharf and by Joerg, but
there are organizations daily pumping out that sort of propaganda.


How did we end up with this discussion here? You brought it up again. I didn't see sms or Joerg show up in this thread. Was it too long ago that you could impose your opinion?

Hmm. Should I email you for prior permission regarding points of discussion?

Yes. I vote for Lou to moderate.

And I vote against. A moderator should be moderate. Someone who rails
against putting a bag on a bike used for long rides is in an extreme
fringe.

For you, Frank, everything is deceit or propaganda if it doesn't fit your agenda...

Baloney. You're constructing grossly over-generalized straw men.

which is sometimes opaque and/or contradictory. You want to increase utility cycling, but you rant against basically any facilities.

Really? And yet, I'm almost solely responsible for some local
facilities, and worked on a small committee that's responsible for
another. I've spoken publicly in favor of another besides those, and I
worked on a statewide committee that funded many more.

If you want to rationally discuss facility benefits and detriments,
let's do it. Don's snipe about them in a rambling rant.

Hardly rambling. I don't recall that you have ever endorsed a bicycle facility. Which ones do you endorse in your community versus which ones were actually built?

And unless you are very wealthy, I doubt that you were solely or primarily responsible for any facility. CABs and clubs give testimony, and elected or appointed officials and their staff make the decisions. Maybe your testimony was super-good.


Separated facilities are what account for the NL's high bicycle mode share. There is no question about that...

That's simplistic nonsense, and probably backward. Netherlands' history
and bicycle culture account for its separated facilities. It had high
bike mode share when it had almost no such facilities. And places with
Netherlands-style facilities but without its other attributes still have
tiny mode shares.

WTF? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ng-kindermoord The bike facilities in the NL are of relatively recent origin.

A bit more research might be in order as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclin...he_Netherlands
" by the 1890s the Dutch were already building dedicated paths for
cyclists. By 1911, the Dutch owned more bicycles per capita than any
other country in Europe."

But yes, there was a later movement:
This protest movement was known as the Stop de Kindermoord [nl]
(literally "Stop the Child Murder" in Dutch). The success of this
movement, along with other factors, such as the oil shortages of 1973
and the publication of the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic
turned Dutch government policy around and the country began to
restrict motor vehicles in its towns and cities..."

As an aside, as of 2012 there are something like 35,000 kilometers of
bicycle paths... and 75% of secondary school students cycle to
school, rising to 84% riding for those living within 5 km of school.
Even for distances of 16 km (9.9 mi) or over, some 8% of secondary
school children cycle in each direction to school,

snip

And in Portland we were building dedicated bike roads in the 1890s. https://tinyurl.com/y96hs5p6 The bike roads were better than the car roads. There was a bicycling craze in the 1890s in the US and Europe -- that craze basically vanished with the auto, at least in the US.

In the NL they did keep riding, but numbers dropped after WWII and dropped precipitously after the '60s, and apparently road deaths skyrocketed, resulting in the big infrastructure changes in the '70s and onward. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...nfrastructure/

It appears from the video that the modern separated facilities we associate with NL were built after the '70s. To quote the narrator "build it and they will come in the Netherlands." They won't come in Omaha and a lot of other places, and yes, I get it that the US is not the NL (for a lot of reasons), but that doesn't mean some infrastructure isn't worthwhile.

Has anybody here ever said "No bike infrastructure is worthwhile?" I
certainly haven't.

Yes, I say a lot about bad design features, mistaken conceptions, etc.
Yes, I point out whiz-bang infrastructure that caused increases in
crashes. I don't think "any bike facility is a good bike facility."

Don't fault me for pointing out facility faults; it's not blasphemy.
That crap isn't sacred.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 18:53:33 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 5:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2020 16:37:06 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 9:42:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 8:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 10:14:16 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 1:02 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, June 13, 2020 at 6:50:45 PM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 9:59 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2020 11:31 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2020 2:51 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/12/2020 11:55 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2020 12:41 PM, wrote:
On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 4:41:57 PM UTC+2, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 6/12/2020 6:09 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 12:06:56 AM UTC+2, Frank
Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2020 4:32 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 9:35:56 PM UTC+2,
jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 11:13:38 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
On Thursday, June 11, 2020 at 7:23:34 PM UTC+2,
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2020 11:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
https://bikerumor.com/2018/06/23/com...nx-gx-x01-xx1/





For those who fondly recall 13~17 freewheels,
there's a new 10~50 cassette!

50 teeth! Wow, I never thought I'd see the day when
my 34 tooth biggest
cog was considered too small.

I'm getting a little out of date. I gotta catch up.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Ah, you give us a voucher to make fun of your dorky
handlebar bag and all the other stuff you bolted to
your bike one more time. Keep up the good work.

You are not a true utility cyclist.* Be quiet. You
probably wear a helmet, also known as a head-shackle.

-- Jay Beattie.

I'm certainly not a true utility cyclist. Hauling
gallons of milk or crates of beer seems silly to me if
you have a car on your driveway.

That's interesting. The U.S. currently has an
enthusiastic industry and
publicity machine saying we should build
Netherlands-style bike paths
everywhere.

Why? Because then people will stop driving their cars!


--
- Frank Krygowski

What has that to do with the fact that I prefer using my
car for groceries and not my bike. I only use my bike
for non fun rides if it is more practical.

??? Your question amazes me. You are a direct rebuttal to
their claims.

Of course you don't use your bike if your car is "more
practical." And
as I recall, you mocked things like handlebar bags - so
carrying more
than one liter volume means your car will almost always
be "more
practical." For almost all Americans, that is also true.
They will use
it as an excuse to never bike for utility.

Also, any trip requiring muscular exertion will make
their car "more
practical." Temperatures above 22 C will be too hot to be
practical.
Temperatures below 20 C will be too chilly. Rain, or the
possibility of
rain will have the same effect. So will snow, of course.
And darkness.

The U.S. will never be a bicycling nation. Your own
preference for the
car, except for "sport" rides, even in a nation renowned
for its cycling
culture adds evidence.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Last year:
mileage car: 7500 km
mileage bike(s): 12000 km.

Give me the numbers for utility riding, as opposed to sport
riding.



You're back in the realm of taste and fashion there.

Who's to say that one cyclist's experience is better or
more pure or more admirable than another's? Not me.

My point immediately above was that America's dominant
"taste and fashion" will be driving cars for the foreseeable
future. That's true even if quasi-protected bikeways are
magically built to every destination.

If a 12000 km/year cyclist won't bike to the grocery in a
country famed for world-record bike facilities, the average
American isn't going to do it no matter what gets built in
the right-of-way.

That's fact. Whether it's good or bad can be discussed, but
the good or bad is beside the point.


I disagree.

I think you disagree because you're not understanding my point, or my
context. Perhaps I didn't write clearly enough.

The specific point I was making had nothing to do with practicality of
any type of bike. It was about the propaganda avalanche claiming that IF
we just build the right kind of bike lanes, THEN Americans will switch
from cars to bikes in temendous (or at least, very significant) numbers.
In r.b.tech, that's been espoused mostly by Scharf and by Joerg, but
there are organizations daily pumping out that sort of propaganda.


How did we end up with this discussion here? You brought it up again. I didn't see sms or Joerg show up in this thread. Was it too long ago that you could impose your opinion?

Hmm. Should I email you for prior permission regarding points of discussion?

Yes. I vote for Lou to moderate.

And I vote against. A moderator should be moderate. Someone who rails
against putting a bag on a bike used for long rides is in an extreme
fringe.

For you, Frank, everything is deceit or propaganda if it doesn't fit your agenda...

Baloney. You're constructing grossly over-generalized straw men.

which is sometimes opaque and/or contradictory. You want to increase utility cycling, but you rant against basically any facilities.

Really? And yet, I'm almost solely responsible for some local
facilities, and worked on a small committee that's responsible for
another. I've spoken publicly in favor of another besides those, and I
worked on a statewide committee that funded many more.

If you want to rationally discuss facility benefits and detriments,
let's do it. Don's snipe about them in a rambling rant.

Hardly rambling. I don't recall that you have ever endorsed a bicycle facility. Which ones do you endorse in your community versus which ones were actually built?

And unless you are very wealthy, I doubt that you were solely or primarily responsible for any facility. CABs and clubs give testimony, and elected or appointed officials and their staff make the decisions. Maybe your testimony was super-good.


Separated facilities are what account for the NL's high bicycle mode share. There is no question about that...

That's simplistic nonsense, and probably backward. Netherlands' history
and bicycle culture account for its separated facilities. It had high
bike mode share when it had almost no such facilities. And places with
Netherlands-style facilities but without its other attributes still have
tiny mode shares.

WTF? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ng-kindermoord The bike facilities in the NL are of relatively recent origin.

A bit more research might be in order as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclin...he_Netherlands
" by the 1890s the Dutch were already building dedicated paths for
cyclists. By 1911, the Dutch owned more bicycles per capita than any
other country in Europe."

But yes, there was a later movement:
This protest movement was known as the Stop de Kindermoord [nl]
(literally "Stop the Child Murder" in Dutch). The success of this
movement, along with other factors, such as the oil shortages of 1973
and the publication of the CROW Design Manual for Bicycle Traffic
turned Dutch government policy around and the country began to
restrict motor vehicles in its towns and cities..."

As an aside, as of 2012 there are something like 35,000 kilometers of
bicycle paths... and 75% of secondary school students cycle to
school, rising to 84% riding for those living within 5 km of school.
Even for distances of 16 km (9.9 mi) or over, some 8% of secondary
school children cycle in each direction to school,

snip

And in Portland we were building dedicated bike roads in the 1890s. https://tinyurl.com/y96hs5p6 The bike roads were better than the car roads. There was a bicycling craze in the 1890s in the US and Europe -- that craze basically vanished with the auto, at least in the US.

In the NL they did keep riding, but numbers dropped after WWII and dropped precipitously after the '60s, and apparently road deaths skyrocketed, resulting in the big infrastructure changes in the '70s and onward. https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...nfrastructure/

It appears from the video that the modern separated facilities we associate with NL were built after the '70s. To quote the narrator "build it and they will come in the Netherlands." They won't come in Omaha and a lot of other places, and yes, I get it that the US is not the NL (for a lot of reasons), but that doesn't mean some infrastructure isn't worthwhile. It has improved my (pre-COVID) daily commute which is now all bike lane when before it was a painted fog line with 50mph traffic. There are some excellent rail-trials (except for the surge of COVID walkers) -- and some really bad facilities. I'm not sold on infrastructure, but then I'm not the target audience. I would go crazy in NL in a week.

-- Jay Beattie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o
A pretty good description of the history of bicycling in Holland.
Or
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2...nfrastructure/
--
cheers,

John B.

Am 12.06.2020 um 12:09 schrieb :
On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 12:06:56 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2020 4:32 PM, wrote:

I'm certainly not a true utility cyclist. Hauling gallons of milk or crates of beer seems silly to me if you have a car on your driveway.

That's interesting. The U.S. currently has an enthusiastic industry and
publicity machine saying we should build Netherlands-style bike paths
everywhere.

Why? Because then people will stop driving their cars!

What has that to do with the fact that I prefer using my car for groceries and not my bike. I only use my bike for non fun rides if it is more practical.

I fact, the Netherlands built their bike paths because they wanted to
have more fun driving rather than biking. The number of bike trips has
stayed pretty much constant since they started building them in the
1970's, the number of car trips has exploded since.

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 10:17:30 AM UTC+2, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 12.06.2020 um 12:09 schrieb :
On Friday, June 12, 2020 at 12:06:56 AM UTC+2, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/11/2020 4:32 PM, wrote:

I'm certainly not a true utility cyclist. Hauling gallons of milk or crates of beer seems silly to me if you have a car on your driveway.

That's interesting. The U.S. currently has an enthusiastic industry and
publicity machine saying we should build Netherlands-style bike paths
everywhere.

Why? Because then people will stop driving their cars!

What has that to do with the fact that I prefer using my car for groceries and not my bike. I only use my bike for non fun rides if it is more practical.

I fact, the Netherlands built their bike paths because they wanted to
have more fun driving rather than biking. The number of bike trips has
stayed pretty much constant since they started building them in the
1970's, the number of car trips has exploded since.

We build our bike paths and changed the infra structure in the inner cities from the 1970 on to make the coexistence of cars and bicycles more safe for cyclists. I don't know whether the bike trips increased or not but what I know is that the number of cyclists killed dropped dramatically and driving your car to and in the cities is no fun at all since then. For some parts of the city centers it is even not possible.
As a faster cyclists I am not always happy with the bike paths but I have to admit that the design is very consistent and they are overall wonderful. What is not to like about this:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1fmADhSrNPugPjwz8

or this newly constructed bikepath:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/gAFqDSnOECBcxETP2

Lou

On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 7:17:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2020 7:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 9:42:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 8:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:

For you, Frank, everything is deceit or propaganda if it doesn't fit your agenda...

Baloney. You're constructing grossly over-generalized straw men.

which is sometimes opaque and/or contradictory. You want to increase utility cycling, but you rant against basically any facilities.

Really? And yet, I'm almost solely responsible for some local
facilities, and worked on a small committee that's responsible for
another. I've spoken publicly in favor of another besides those, and I
worked on a statewide committee that funded many more.

If you want to rationally discuss facility benefits and detriments,
let's do it. Don's snipe about them in a rambling rant.

Hardly rambling. I don't recall that you have ever endorsed a bicycle facility. Which ones do you endorse in your community versus which ones were actually built?

And unless you are very wealthy, I doubt that you were solely or primarily responsible for any facility. CABs and clubs give testimony, and elected or appointed officials and their staff make the decisions. Maybe your testimony was super-good.

There used to be a little dirt/mud path that connected the village
center with the dead end of a nice residential collector street.
Actually, the street was a bit disconintuous - after a block or so,
there was another block's worth of dirt path. Decades ago, a streetcar
line ran that way. There's also a water main under it.

I was on a bicycle-pedestrian committee for my village, working on
getting federal "ISTEA" grants. (We got three, an impressive score for a
tiny village.) Anyway, during that time the water company replaced the
pipe and destroyed the little paths. With the permission of the
committee, I wrote the letter to the water company suggesting that they
repair and upgrade the path. They did so willingly, and now it's a very
highly used shortcut into the center of the village.


ISTEA. There's a golden oldie. Portland got a boat-load of money from ISTEA/TEA-21. I believe this is a TEA-21 project: https://bikeportland.org/2017/12/19/...the-u-s-261628 I know the Eastside Esplanade was ISTEA/TEA-21




The other situation was a major bridge over a freeway - or rather, two
parallel bridges, since the eastbound is structurally independent of the
westbound. The westbound bridge has two 12 foot lanes, and had a narrow
raised concrete ... walkway?? I don't know what its intent, but it was
about 8" higher than the roadway, maybe 24" wide, and if someone walked
on it, the guardrail came up to about the height of their thighs.
Tripping would send a person over the rail to the freeway below.

Yet a few people did walk across that bridge, since it connects some
large residential areas with major shopping plazas just 1/4 to 1/2 mile
away.

I heard the bridge was going to get major maintenance, so I began a
campaign to widen the bridge. I wrote letters, my friends wrote letters,
I called people at the MPO (the second in command is one of my
graduates, I've done volunteer work for them, they know me well). I
ended up in a three way phone conference with the second in command,
plus the person in charge of transportation issues. They said it would
be very, very expensive, I said if not done now, it would not get done
for 30 years. They said ODOT was afraid of liability for putting in a
sidewalk because there was no sidewalk east of the bridge. I said widen
the pavement, but don't mark it as a sidewalk or bike lane.

Ultimately they did what I suggested, even though it cost roughly a
hundred thousand dollars, IIRC. They widened the bridge but marked the
extra width with diagonal "keep off" stripes. I still generally take the
right 12 foot lane because, as usual, there's gravel where cars don't
roll. But the walking is much safer, and the biking somewhat safer.

Separated facilities are what account for the NL's high bicycle mode share. There is no question about that...

That's simplistic nonsense, and probably backward. Netherlands' history
and bicycle culture account for its separated facilities. It had high
bike mode share when it had almost no such facilities. And places with
Netherlands-style facilities but without its other attributes still have
tiny mode shares.

WTF? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ng-kindermoord The bike facilities in the NL are of relatively recent origin.

The point you missed is this: If Netherlanders had no strong tradition
of travel without cars, they would not have mounted that campaign. The
quote is "The streets _no longer_ belonged to the people who lived
there." In the U.S., for 100 years (longer than several generations'
memory, the streets never did belong to the people.)

The point you missed is that NLs bike mode share tanked after the 1950s and road deaths skyrocketed. The revival -- such as it is -- was chalked up to the new segregated facilities. Can we turn Youngstown into Amsterdam with bike facilities. No. God only knows what might get them on bikes. I leave that to you.



I shouldn't have said anything...

Yes, on several topics.

Because you are easily triggered.


Those countries with the highest mode shares are not chock-full-o vehicular cyclists. Most are riding in protected facilities of one sort or another or traffic calmed streets. The Amsterdam and Copenhagens of the world..

"The Amsterdam and Copenhagens of the world" is a laughably small
sample, Jay. Why not give an example where cycling culture was not
previously dominant, but where the city or country's traffic is now
dominated by bicycles instead of cars? And where a typical resident can,
and does, get to almost any daily destination via protected facilities?

I'll wait.

Uh (raising hand), Amsterdam. See above.

You ignored the "was not previously dominant" part. Check out Amsterdam
in the 1950s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ4XQElmO_E
If Amsterdam wasn't like that in the 1950s, it wouldn't be as it is today..

True, but if it hadn't invested in infrastructure starting in the '70s, it wouldn't be as it is today. It would be worse than it was in the 60s because of increased auto traffic, and road deaths would likely be higher.


I don't know this for a fact, but with the short commutes and added protected bike facilities in NYC and Brooklyn, adding infrastructure here has probably increased bike mode share. https://www.amny.com/transit/nyc-bic...ys-1.11763975/

Perhaps, for a certain value of increase. By now you should know that
increasing from 1.5% to 2% bike mode share is considered a triumph in an
American city. But that's not what I asked. Where are the really
significant increases that are attributable to bike facilities? Hey, how
about Milton Keynes or Stevenage in England? GREAT facilities! But 2%
mode share.


The real question is whether the small increase justifies the expense..

Is that the real question?

"SOME facilities do bring out SOME new cyclists" is probably the lowest
bar possible. It's down there with "Well, helmets must prevent SOME head
injuries!" or "But riding a bike can cause SOME injuries!" or "But Trump
has done SOME good for the U.S." Heck, send me $100,000. I'll invest it
for you and guarantee SOME return.

I'd say the first real question is, what does the country want to
achieve with respect to bike ridership? How much do we want, and why do
we want to do it?

Then I'd ask what is really realistic? Strip away the dreams that more
bicyclists will remove city congestion (Portland is still congested as
hell) or greatly lower greenhouse gases (perhaps it will a tiny bit, but
it would be undetectable - too far down the list to bother with).

And what is realistically achievable? Even magically trendy Portland
can't reach 10% bike mode share among its hip residents. Cleveland,
Jacksonville, Detroit, Los Angeles etc. are absolutely never going to
become Amsterdam.

What are you suggesting? Do nothing but sneer at facilities, helmets, sport riders, etc., etc.?

My first suggestion is to define the problem or the objective, and do it
in concrete, measurable ways. "Get more people on bikes" does not qualify..

So what do you want to do? Reduce or remove traffic congestion, as
Scharf has suggested? Portland hasn't done that in any measurable way.
Perhaps Davis CA has, but it's even more unique than Portland OR.

Do you want to significantly reduce greenhouse gases? My guess [can I
borrow that, Jeff?] is one electric bus is worth 100 bike commuters. If
you take the money Portland put into bike chutes and bought wind farm
shares, it would cut more CO2.

Do you just want people on bikes because it's cool to see people on
bikes? I like seeing people on bikes, except maybe when they're heading
toward me on a head-on collision path. But should society spend fortunes
on stuff that's merely cool?

Tell me your objectives. I'll suggest a strategy or two.

But one thing I'd certainly stop doing is the schizophrenic messaging:
"Bicycling is great for you! It's great for society! But it's SO
DANGEROUS! Don't do it without protective gear!! Don't do it on ordinary
roads!!" That makes zero sense.

In some PDX neighborhoods its 20% bike mode share. High citywide numbers would be hard because of distances and most people not wanting to do 10% climbs from the west side.

If you shrink your focus area to a carefully chosen zone, you can get
wonderful numbers. Between me and three adjacent neighbors, I'm pretty
sure our mode share is over 20%. But that's just coincidence. (It's cool
that the guy who moved in two doors away is a career bike mechanic.)

I'm talking areas the size of your village, which is what, eight blocks?

Another BTA project - simple and effective: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/09/...ffic-is-bikes/


After all that, if you finally have a realistic bike mode share goal for
realistic reasons, ask what's the best way of achieving it. It's not
going to be spending a million dollars a mile for "protected" bike
chutes that violate fundamental rules of traffic movement.

If you weren't so intent on arguing with me, you'd admit that.

I'm not intent on arguing with you. Having done much of he same sort of advocacy work, albeit not bike club-based (because I hate the officiousness and showing up at meetings in the same dopey discount jerseys)...

sigh Your portrayal of at least our bike club is way off. Not that I'm
as involved as I once was.

and living in a city that is infrastructure crazy and has tons of cyclists, I know that some infrastructure is good and some is bad...

Yes. So why mock me when I mention what's bad? Must I promise to mention
what's good whenever I see it? Or _if_ I see it?

(Today's ride featured me avoiding a short bike lane. I actually didn't
know it was a bike lane until riding by it with a friend a week or two
ago. She said "No, really, it has bike lane markings under all that
gravel. Didn't you see the 'Bike Lane Ends' sign at the intersection?")

... and my views on what is bad are not necessarily shared by exactly the type of cyclists you champion -- plain folks out to buy a gallon of milk at the Piggly Wiggly.

That's actually a significant problem with bike advocacy. "Plain folks
on bikes" are the ones who think "Any bike facility is a good bike
facility." I've mentioned before various facilities that before-after
data clearly show big increases in crashes; but users in surveys say "I
feel safer." In fact, people like John Pucher, Roger Geller, etc. make a
lot of hay about people's feelings, even when those feelings are wrong.

You think you're the only right one.

"Only"? Seriously, do you think I'm not in contact with lots of other
people who share my views? They tend to be people who have gasp!
studied the relevant data, on whatever topic you choose.


What is Youngstown's bike mode share? Not seeing Youngstown on the list. http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/2020-...ngs-ridership/ Its wet even in June, and although we don't have the dreadful Ohio winters, we still ride in snow. https://i1.wp.com/usa.streetsblog.or...8314be95bf.jpg Day in. Day out. We're hardy Americans. So if you're not going to build facilities, how are you going to Youngstowners on bikes? Are you going to call them all Nancies and wussies? If so, can I help? That sounds like fun.

Youngstown's bike mode share is near zero. Interestingly, even almost
all avid riders here don't choose to bike to work or for utility. Sound
familiar? (Maybe it's because they, too, hate bike bags??)

But what if Youngstown put in some quasi-protected bike lanes? What if
the city started a "Biking is really cool and good for the environment!"
publicity campaign? How about an official "Bike to Work Day" with free
breakfast, giveaway trinkets, lots of publicity?

The bike mode share would still be near zero. Those things have happened
either here or in cities within my riding area. They've made no
detectable difference.

Fashion is weird and powerful. It's also very hard to control. It
happens on its own accord, with perhaps influence from the fundamental
culture of the area.

Here's a clue: I've never, ever seen a bumper sticker saying "Keep
Youngstown Weird."

Maybe you need bumper stickers. There are traffic volumes that would be impossible without the infrastructure. N. Williams for example: https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 The Springwater Corridor on the eastside. The improved bridge crossings.. OHSU is moving tons of people on to bikes: https://www.ohsu.edu/sites/default/f...s_landolfe.jpg

A lot of ordinary commuters I know ride because of certain facilities and would not commute otherwise. That doesn't excuse bad facilities or justify extravagant projects. It simply disproves that facilities have no impact on ridership. They do. Almighty data says so. Do I like them -- only a few, but again, I'm not the target demographic. My least favorite facility is packed in the mornings (pre-COVID).

-- Jay Beattie.

On 6/15/2020 11:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 7:17:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2020 7:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 9:42:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 8:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:

WTF? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ng-kindermoord The bike facilities in the NL are of relatively recent origin.

The point you missed is this: If Netherlanders had no strong tradition
of travel without cars, they would not have mounted that campaign. The
quote is "The streets _no longer_ belonged to the people who lived
there." In the U.S., for 100 years (longer than several generations'
memory, the streets never did belong to the people.)

The point you missed is that NLs bike mode share tanked after the 1950s and road deaths skyrocketed. The revival -- such as it is -- was chalked up to the new segregated facilities. Can we turn Youngstown into Amsterdam with bike facilities. No. God only knows what might get them on bikes. I leave that to you.


"The Amsterdam and Copenhagens of the world" is a laughably small
sample, Jay. Why not give an example where cycling culture was not
previously dominant, but where the city or country's traffic is now
dominated by bicycles instead of cars? And where a typical resident can,
and does, get to almost any daily destination via protected facilities?

I'll wait.

Uh (raising hand), Amsterdam. See above.

You ignored the "was not previously dominant" part. Check out Amsterdam
in the 1950s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ4XQElmO_E
If Amsterdam wasn't like that in the 1950s, it wouldn't be as it is today.

True, but if it hadn't invested in infrastructure starting in the '70s, it wouldn't be as it is today. It would be worse than it was in the 60s because of increased auto traffic, and road deaths would likely be higher.

I agree, if Amsterdam hadn't built bike infrastructure, Amsterdam
wouldn't have bike infrastructure. And yes, it wouldn't have as many
bike users.

But why is it that you and other bike infra promoters don't use 100
other cities as examples? Why _only_ Amsterdam and, occasionally,
Copenhagen, our of the tens of thousands of cities in the world?

Your argument is like saying "Every city should build acres and acres of
small-scale alleys like Marrakesh! _THEN_ we would have a thriving
pedestrian shopping zone!"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...ping-guide.jpg
Sorry, culture and history and environment matter.

Amsterdam and Copenhagen are dead flat. Their climate is milder even
than Portland's. They are very dense, with average trip distances less
than two miles. (When we stayed there, we had two groceries within 1/4
mile.) For those reasons, bicycling was popular long before there were
many bike facilities. All of that forms the necessary foundation for
what they have today.

In the 1950s and 1960s, some other cities tried duplicating those
facilities, hoping for the same bicycle dominance. It failed badly,
specifically because other cities lack those foundations. They don't
have the benign conditions, the density, nor the historic culture of
bicycling. They don't have parents and grandparents saying "When I was
young, everybody used to bicycle everywhere and it was lovely."

In some PDX neighborhoods its 20% bike mode share. High citywide numbers would be hard because of distances and most people not wanting to do 10% climbs from the west side.

If you shrink your focus area to a carefully chosen zone, you can get
wonderful numbers. Between me and three adjacent neighbors, I'm pretty
sure our mode share is over 20%. But that's just coincidence. (It's cool
that the guy who moved in two doors away is a career bike mechanic.)

I'm talking areas the size of your village, which is what, eight blocks?

You're probably talking about places like the super-flat southeast
neighborhoods. I remember that as tiny grid streets with lots of
parallel route choices, lots of little shops, a hippie vibe, etc. Our
village has none of that, and I see no way to build it here. For one
thing, our tiny village is chopped up by a big creek flowing north and a
big state route going east to west. And most residential streets were
purposely designed to dissuade through traffic.

Where you have meditation centers, we have Presbyterian churches. You
have tattoo parlors, we have opticians. You have cannabis outlets, we
have Walgreens. You have innumerable cafes, we have just two competing
coffee shops. One is always struggling while the other is subsidized by
a wealthy guy so his kids can run it for fun.

Culture makes a difference.

What is Youngstown's bike mode share? Not seeing Youngstown on the list. http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/2020-...ngs-ridership/ Its wet even in June, and although we don't have the dreadful Ohio winters, we still ride in snow. https://i1.wp.com/usa.streetsblog.or...8314be95bf.jpg Day in. Day out. We're hardy Americans. So if you're not going to build facilities, how are you going to Youngstowners on bikes? Are you going to call them all Nancies and wussies? If so, can I help? That sounds like fun.

Youngstown's bike mode share is near zero. Interestingly, even almost
all avid riders here don't choose to bike to work or for utility. Sound
familiar? (Maybe it's because they, too, hate bike bags??)

But what if Youngstown put in some quasi-protected bike lanes? What if
the city started a "Biking is really cool and good for the environment!"
publicity campaign? How about an official "Bike to Work Day" with free
breakfast, giveaway trinkets, lots of publicity?

The bike mode share would still be near zero. Those things have happened
either here or in cities within my riding area. They've made no
detectable difference.

Fashion is weird and powerful. It's also very hard to control. It
happens on its own accord, with perhaps influence from the fundamental
culture of the area.

Here's a clue: I've never, ever seen a bumper sticker saying "Keep
Youngstown Weird."

Maybe you need bumper stickers. There are traffic volumes that would be impossible without the infrastructure. N. Williams for example: https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 The Springwater Corridor on the eastside. The improved bridge crossings. OHSU is moving tons of people on to bikes: https://www.ohsu.edu/sites/default/f...s_landolfe.jpg

A lot of ordinary commuters I know ride because of certain facilities and would not commute otherwise. That doesn't excuse bad facilities or justify extravagant projects. It simply disproves that facilities have no impact on ridership. They do. Almighty data says so. Do I like them -- only a few, but again, I'm not the target demographic. My least favorite facility is packed in the mornings (pre-COVID).

You keep pretending to state my arguments, but you tailor them to your
rebuttals. I have never said that facilities have NO impact on
ridership. Yesterday my wife and I purposely avoided a MUP because I
knew it would be clotted with walkers and bikers. They drove to and from
the MUP, but they did ride or walk it.

In fact, I can propose one local route for a MUP that would actually do
significant good. It's a barely-used railway line from the inner city
past the big local mall and shopping areas. It has relatively few street
crossings, so there would be minimal crossing conflicts. And if extended
past the mall, it would give more pleasant access to a hospital complex
and surrounding country roads

But if it were built, this would still not be a bicycling town. And the
mall developer would probably lobby against it, because it would make it
easier for poor black people to shop at the mall. Besides, October
through March it would get roughly zero use; people here seem to resist
bicycling when the temperature is below 40F, let alone below freezing.

If there were 100 U.S. cities that had raised their bike mode share
above 2% by building bike infrastructure, I think you'd have a glimmer
of an argument. But even then - 2%?? In what arena is that called success?

Your standards seem to be even lower - saying that _some_ facilities
have caused _some_ increase in riding. That throws all cost-benefit
analysis out the window.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, 14 June 2020 22:17:40 UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Snipped
You ignored the "was not previously dominant" part. Check out Amsterdam
in the 1950s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ4XQElmO_E
Snipped
--
- Frank Krygowski

Yeah, but most of those people riding ar not utility bicyclists since they don't have a handlebar bag. VBEG LOL

Cheers

On Monday, June 15, 2020 at 9:49:07 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2020 11:14 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 7:17:40 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2020 7:37 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, June 14, 2020 at 9:42:52 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/13/2020 8:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:

WTF? https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2...ng-kindermoord The bike facilities in the NL are of relatively recent origin.

The point you missed is this: If Netherlanders had no strong tradition
of travel without cars, they would not have mounted that campaign. The
quote is "The streets _no longer_ belonged to the people who lived
there." In the U.S., for 100 years (longer than several generations'
memory, the streets never did belong to the people.)

The point you missed is that NLs bike mode share tanked after the 1950s and road deaths skyrocketed. The revival -- such as it is -- was chalked up to the new segregated facilities. Can we turn Youngstown into Amsterdam with bike facilities. No. God only knows what might get them on bikes. I leave that to you.


"The Amsterdam and Copenhagens of the world" is a laughably small
sample, Jay. Why not give an example where cycling culture was not
previously dominant, but where the city or country's traffic is now
dominated by bicycles instead of cars? And where a typical resident can,
and does, get to almost any daily destination via protected facilities?

I'll wait.

Uh (raising hand), Amsterdam. See above.

You ignored the "was not previously dominant" part. Check out Amsterdam
in the 1950s: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ4XQElmO_E
If Amsterdam wasn't like that in the 1950s, it wouldn't be as it is today.

True, but if it hadn't invested in infrastructure starting in the '70s, it wouldn't be as it is today. It would be worse than it was in the 60s because of increased auto traffic, and road deaths would likely be higher.

I agree, if Amsterdam hadn't built bike infrastructure, Amsterdam
wouldn't have bike infrastructure. And yes, it wouldn't have as many
bike users.

But why is it that you and other bike infra promoters don't use 100
other cities as examples? Why _only_ Amsterdam and, occasionally,
Copenhagen, our of the tens of thousands of cities in the world?

Your argument is like saying "Every city should build acres and acres of
small-scale alleys like Marrakesh! _THEN_ we would have a thriving
pedestrian shopping zone!"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...ping-guide.jpg
Sorry, culture and history and environment matter.

Amsterdam and Copenhagen are dead flat. Their climate is milder even
than Portland's. They are very dense, with average trip distances less
than two miles. (When we stayed there, we had two groceries within 1/4
mile.) For those reasons, bicycling was popular long before there were
many bike facilities. All of that forms the necessary foundation for
what they have today.

In the 1950s and 1960s, some other cities tried duplicating those
facilities, hoping for the same bicycle dominance. It failed badly,
specifically because other cities lack those foundations. They don't
have the benign conditions, the density, nor the historic culture of
bicycling. They don't have parents and grandparents saying "When I was
young, everybody used to bicycle everywhere and it was lovely."

In some PDX neighborhoods its 20% bike mode share. High citywide numbers would be hard because of distances and most people not wanting to do 10% climbs from the west side.

If you shrink your focus area to a carefully chosen zone, you can get
wonderful numbers. Between me and three adjacent neighbors, I'm pretty
sure our mode share is over 20%. But that's just coincidence. (It's cool
that the guy who moved in two doors away is a career bike mechanic.)

I'm talking areas the size of your village, which is what, eight blocks?

You're probably talking about places like the super-flat southeast
neighborhoods. I remember that as tiny grid streets with lots of
parallel route choices, lots of little shops, a hippie vibe, etc. Our
village has none of that, and I see no way to build it here. For one
thing, our tiny village is chopped up by a big creek flowing north and a
big state route going east to west. And most residential streets were
purposely designed to dissuade through traffic.

Where you have meditation centers, we have Presbyterian churches. You
have tattoo parlors, we have opticians. You have cannabis outlets, we
have Walgreens. You have innumerable cafes, we have just two competing
coffee shops. One is always struggling while the other is subsidized by
a wealthy guy so his kids can run it for fun.

Culture makes a difference.

Apparently, you need to change your culture. My wife is a Lutheran, and she commuted by bike when I met her -- back when Portland was weird but claimed to be normal. I think Presbyterians can ride bikes, although they are farsighted.



What is Youngstown's bike mode share? Not seeing Youngstown on the list. http://peopleforbikes.org/blog/2020-...ngs-ridership/ Its wet even in June, and although we don't have the dreadful Ohio winters, we still ride in snow. https://i1.wp.com/usa.streetsblog.or...8314be95bf.jpg Day in. Day out. We're hardy Americans. So if you're not going to build facilities, how are you going to Youngstowners on bikes? Are you going to call them all Nancies and wussies? If so, can I help? That sounds like fun.

Youngstown's bike mode share is near zero. Interestingly, even almost
all avid riders here don't choose to bike to work or for utility. Sound
familiar? (Maybe it's because they, too, hate bike bags??)

But what if Youngstown put in some quasi-protected bike lanes? What if
the city started a "Biking is really cool and good for the environment!"
publicity campaign? How about an official "Bike to Work Day" with free
breakfast, giveaway trinkets, lots of publicity?

The bike mode share would still be near zero. Those things have happened
either here or in cities within my riding area. They've made no
detectable difference.

Fashion is weird and powerful. It's also very hard to control. It
happens on its own accord, with perhaps influence from the fundamental
culture of the area.

Here's a clue: I've never, ever seen a bumper sticker saying "Keep
Youngstown Weird."

Maybe you need bumper stickers. There are traffic volumes that would be impossible without the infrastructure. N. Williams for example: https://bikeportland.org/2016/05/04/...o-essay-182506 The Springwater Corridor on the eastside. The improved bridge crossings. OHSU is moving tons of people on to bikes: https://www.ohsu.edu/sites/default/f...s_landolfe.jpg

A lot of ordinary commuters I know ride because of certain facilities and would not commute otherwise. That doesn't excuse bad facilities or justify extravagant projects. It simply disproves that facilities have no impact on ridership. They do. Almighty data says so. Do I like them -- only a few, but again, I'm not the target demographic. My least favorite facility is packed in the mornings (pre-COVID).

You keep pretending to state my arguments, but you tailor them to your
rebuttals. I have never said that facilities have NO impact on
ridership. Yesterday my wife and I purposely avoided a MUP because I
knew it would be clotted with walkers and bikers. They drove to and from
the MUP, but they did ride or walk it.

I'm trying to figure out how this goes with your topic sentence. Was that MUP a waste of taxpayer money, and was it sited to promote cycling and failed?

MUPs often get sited for reasons entirely unrelated to relieving congestion or handling bike volume, although some rail-trail conversions around here do excellent double duty as recreational paths and bike highways. I'm not sold on MUPs, but many are zero cost to local government and dedicated as part of developments -- and required for development approval. That's how Joerg got a lot of his separate bike paths. I ride this one:
https://pages.uoregon.edu/jrussial/c...iver_trail.jpg
I'm pretty sure the land was grabbed from the local condo developments.

In fact, I can propose one local route for a MUP that would actually do
significant good. It's a barely-used railway line from the inner city
past the big local mall and shopping areas. It has relatively few street
crossings, so there would be minimal crossing conflicts. And if extended
past the mall, it would give more pleasant access to a hospital complex
and surrounding country roads

But if it were built, this would still not be a bicycling town. And the
mall developer would probably lobby against it, because it would make it
easier for poor black people to shop at the mall. Besides, October
through March it would get roughly zero use; people here seem to resist
bicycling when the temperature is below 40F, let alone below freezing.

Sounds like low-hanging fruit and easy to roll into development approval. Go for it! What's the worst that could happen? You could use it as your great test case -- go out there and count bikes.

BTW, what is a barely used rail line? Is it used sometimes? Would the RR abandon it. If you have to buy back the right-of-way from the RR or landowners, that's a whole other issue.




If there were 100 U.S. cities that had raised their bike mode share
above 2% by building bike infrastructure, I think you'd have a glimmer
of an argument. But even then - 2%?? In what arena is that called success?

When prior was zero, 2% is pretty good -- and it generally means a much higher local percentage. Why not get neighborhoods on bikes even if the whole-city numbers are pitiful?

OT, I like some facilities just because they are peaceful and beat the hell out of the roadway by any metric. I use some MUPs as my exclusive route and have abandoned the roadway. Does that increase ridership? Probably not, but there is a safety benefit for existing cyclists and pedestrians as well as the linear park aspect of it. Just get the money out of the park budget, which is actually the budget that pays for the one I use most: https://www.spinlister.com/blog/wp-c...on-creek-7.jpg
Which is a side path that allows me to skip this zero shoulder climb: https://tinyurl.com/ybjvls6c You can see where the side-path cuts into the forest. Thats a 45mph major arterial where I used to ride until traffic got too aggressive (rich people from Lake Oswego in their midlife crisis-mobiles). I could still ride there, I just don't want to anymore.

Your standards seem to be even lower - saying that _some_ facilities
have caused _some_ increase in riding. That throws all cost-benefit
analysis out the window.

In many cases the cost was zero or mandated by the Bike Bill or part of a larger transportation package built under one of the many federal funding programs -- or a mix of public and private money, like rail trails. And, again, straying from the "build it and they will come" question, there are facilities that just make for a nicer city, like in PDX, the Eastbank Esplanade.. https://www.spinlister.com/blog/east...ater-corridor/

Anyway, I agree that we shouldn't be extravagant and shouldn't build bad infrastructure, but I've seen huge increases in cycling in Portland in the last 35 years -- like from zero to too many some days, and it has followed large moves by planning departments and advocacy groups which included facility building, albeit mostly bike lanes and some larger centerpiece trails. We were still weird 35 years ago (had more jazz clubs back then by far -- plenty of weed, albeit not in shops and tattoo parlors), but assuming the new-comers are weirder and more into bikes, then we should capitalize on that..

I don't think the isolated bike chutes promoted anything but danger, and I feel the same way about the cycle tracks -- particularly through South Waterfront, but I'm constantly overruled on that one. It violates all of your standards, and I'm sure it was expensive, but people use it all the time to get to work. https://bikeportland.org/2015/08/14/...et-bike-155284 The massive influx of people who populate those condo towers are riding bikes, or at least some of them are. I hate that cycletrack and preferred the area when it was an abandoned shipyard, mini-storage, meth addicts and a pot-holed road that I rode virtually alone -- but again, I'm not the target demographic. They built it, and a lot of annoying people with blinding DRLs came.

-- Jay Beattie.