Melbourne, eat your heart out: "Hunter could be the cycling capitalof Australia"

Melbourne, eat your heart out: "Hunter could be the cycling capital of Australia".

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/25...tralia/?cs=303

The guys behind the scheme want the government to commit A$75m to bicycling infrastructure. (Not fiddly cheap local cosmetis that might as well be designed to kill cyclists, real infrastructure.) See the map at the URL above. If it comes off, it will be a model region.

I wish them luck. You are invited to hold thumbs for them.

Andre Jute

On 8/30/2014 5:48 AM, Andre Jute wrote:
Melbourne, eat your heart out: "Hunter could be the cycling capital of Australia".

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/25...tralia/?cs=303

The guys behind the scheme want the government to commit A$75m to bicycling infrastructure.
(Not fiddly cheap local cosmetis that might as well be designed to kill
cyclists, real infrastructure.)
See the map at the URL above. If it comes off, it will be a model region.

Wow. Maybe they'll be as successful as Stevenage and Milton Keynes in
Britain, with their designed-in-from-the-start superhighways for bikes,
built with underpasses instead of road intersections, allowing easy
access all across the towns with almost no interactions with motor vehicles.

Just think! As with Stevenage and Milton Keynes, the bike modal share
might rise to as much as... well, 3%. At least, that's what those
towns have had. Not so impressive after all.

From http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/

"The cycleways were mostly flat and there were cycle and pedestrian
bridges, and underpasses which wouldn’t have looked out of place in the
Netherlands at the time, mainly because they were modelled on Dutch
infrastructure. Stevenage was compact and Claxton [the designer] assumed
the provision of 12ft wide cycle paths and 7ft wide footways – separated
by grass strips as a minimum, and sometimes barriers, too – would
encourage residents to cycle and walk everywhere. He had witnessed high
usage of cycle tracks in the Netherlands and believed the same could be
achieved in the UK.

"Instead – to Claxton’s puzzlement, and eventual horror – residents of
Stevenage chose to drive, not cycle, even for journeys of two miles or
less."

"... Squint and, where the infrastructure is intact, under the
roundabouts for instance, and you could be in the Netherlands. Except
there are very few people on bikes."

Trendy Portland's bike mode share has stayed flat for several years,
despite more and more "innovative!" segregated facilities. And despite
the rah-rah headline, this article's
http://urbantimes.co/2014/06/bike-la...crease-biking/
bar graphs make clear that most people riding on "protected" cycle
tracks would have been riding anyway. Only a tiny percentage gave up
their car to use their bike.

Seems clear to me that if you want a large bike modal share (as in, say,
Amsterdam) you've got to undertake strong measures to discourage car use
(as in, say, Amsterdam). We may think it's sad, but most people are
simply not very interested in jumping on their bikes.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Aaargh! The gracious thing, Franki-boy, if you can't wish another cyclist good luck, is to shut your gob.

I read as far as "Stevenage and Milton Keynes". You should discover when these "model towns" were built, Franki-boy, and what leftover wartime restrictions on buying cars were released at the same time. As usual, you don't know what the **** you're talking about because you presume conditions are the same as on your street corner. They aren't now, and they weren't then.

Andre Jute

On Saturday, August 30, 2014 3:42:20 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/30/2014 5:48 AM, Andre Jute wrote:

Melbourne, eat your heart out: "Hunter could be the cycling capital of Australia".



http://www.theherald.com.au/story/25...tralia/?cs=303



The guys behind the scheme want the government to commit A$75m to bicycling infrastructure.

(Not fiddly cheap local cosmetis that might as well be designed to kill

cyclists, real infrastructure.)

See the map at the URL above. If it comes off, it will be a model region.



Wow. Maybe they'll be as successful as Stevenage and Milton Keynes in

Britain, with their designed-in-from-the-start superhighways for bikes,

built with underpasses instead of road intersections, allowing easy

access all across the towns with almost no interactions with motor vehicles.



Just think! As with Stevenage and Milton Keynes, the bike modal share

might rise to as much as... well, 3%. At least, that's what those

towns have had. Not so impressive after all.



From http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/



"The cycleways were mostly flat and there were cycle and pedestrian

bridges, and underpasses which wouldn�t have looked out of place in the

Netherlands at the time, mainly because they were modelled on Dutch

infrastructure. Stevenage was compact and Claxton [the designer] assumed

the provision of 12ft wide cycle paths and 7ft wide footways � separated

by grass strips as a minimum, and sometimes barriers, too � would

encourage residents to cycle and walk everywhere. He had witnessed high

usage of cycle tracks in the Netherlands and believed the same could be

achieved in the UK.



"Instead � to Claxton�s puzzlement, and eventual horror � residents of

Stevenage chose to drive, not cycle, even for journeys of two miles or

less."



"... Squint and, where the infrastructure is intact, under the

roundabouts for instance, and you could be in the Netherlands. Except

there are very few people on bikes."



Trendy Portland's bike mode share has stayed flat for several years,

despite more and more "innovative!" segregated facilities. And despite

the rah-rah headline, this article's

http://urbantimes.co/2014/06/bike-la...crease-biking/

bar graphs make clear that most people riding on "protected" cycle

tracks would have been riding anyway. Only a tiny percentage gave up

their car to use their bike.



Seems clear to me that if you want a large bike modal share (as in, say,

Amsterdam) you've got to undertake strong measures to discourage car use

(as in, say, Amsterdam). We may think it's sad, but most people are

simply not very interested in jumping on their bikes.



--

- Frank Krygowski

On 8/30/2014 6:32 PM, Andre Jute wrote...

.... more of his odious blather.

You didn't address the points, Jute. It certainly seems that
"innovative!" and inviting facilities are not sufficient. You can build
them, but only a few people will come.

If you want lots of cycling mode share, it's necessary to actively
dissuade motoring, as the Dutch do.

I'll now go back to ignoring the blowhard.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 3:49:22 AM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/30/2014 6:32 PM, Andre Jute wrote...

... more of his odious blather.

Franki-boy Krygowski, out of fear that everyone else might agree with me, cut my entire message so that he can claim:

You didn't address the points, Jute.

That's a lie. I addressed each of your points, Franki-boy. And some that you don't need to make explicitly any more, because we are nauseated by your repetitions. For instance, here I addressed your permanent omnidirectional sour negativity towards all other cyclists:

"Aaargh! The gracious thing, Franki-boy, if you can't wish another cyclist good luck, is to shut your gob." -- Andre Jute addressing Franki-boy Krygowski.

Next we have some internet asshole called Franki-boy Krygowski try for the second time in two messages to hijack my thread for his own hobby-horse, of which were are sick to the point of vomiting:

It certainly seems that
"innovative!" and inviting facilities are not sufficient. You can build
them, but only a few people will come.

You've only told us a thousand time, Franki-boy. Unlike you, we are not jumped-up welders, and we weren't educated at third-rate community colleges. We knew that much before you told us for the first time. You're like the village who has learned a verse from the bible and can't stop himself repeating it over and over, regardless of whether it meets the occasion.

If you want lots of cycling mode share, it's necessary to actively
dissuade motoring, as the Dutch do.

If that's what you want to discuss, go make your own thread, dickhead. I don't come into your threads and deliberately ruin them, as you do to everyone's threads. What part of "**** off" do you fail to understand?

I'll now go back to ignoring the blowhard.

Please god, for once make this thick-skinned clown Krygowski keep his word.

Andre Jute

On 31/08/14 08:32, Andre Jute wrote:
Aaargh! The gracious thing, Franki-boy, if you can't wish another cyclist good luck, is to shut your gob.

Hehehe.


I hope Newcastle does get this facilities. If it encourages a few more
people to ride bike, that's a step in the right direction - even if it
doesn't address the bigger problem directly, that is the arse hole
factor in motor vehicles in those parts. Having made a few journeys by
bike between Maitland and Newcastle, I can say with some authority, the
main roads are not good for bicycling unless you have nerves of steel.

--
JS

On 31/08/14 12:49, Frank Krygowski wrote:


If you want lots of cycling mode share, it's necessary to actively
dissuade motoring, as the Dutch do.


While that is true, you have to start somewhere.

Pollies need a little baiting. They need to see reward for effort.
They won't do something just for the good of the public - it has to be
popular too.

Making motor vehicle use less attractive, when motor vehicle use is so
ingrained, is a difficult thing to sell.

Get a few more people riding. Attract tourists. Get a vocal part of
the community behind it. Gradually persuade the general public it's not
so bad. Slowly reduce car access. Make cycling easier (no helmets
would help obviously).

It's an evolutionary change, not an overnight thing. It'll take
generations, IMO.

I mentioned the same to a staunch facilities man recently. He told me I
used the term evolution incorrectly.

Oh well.

--
JS

On 31/08/2014 23:34, Phil W Lee wrote:

Yes, Cambridge did it by the University banning all undergraduates
from keeping any motor vehicle anywhere near the City, while running
study and lecture schedules which are almost impossible to meet on
foot.
You can in theory get exemption from this, but it is rarely granted to
undergraduates without serious mobility impairments.

Actually, it's a lot easier to get exemption than that. Joining the
motor sports club is a good way, as is taking up an activity which
involves driving away for a weekend. And I think there's plenty of
people ignoring the rules.

Still leaves the vast majority carless though - there's no point in
having one in such a compact town where the colleges do such a good job
at looking after students (ie they provide accomodation for the majority
of undergrads). And parking in central Cambridge is an utter nightmare.
And of course it's now well established tradition, which is probably the
most important thing.

On Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:08:56 PM UTC+1, James wrote:
On 31/08/14 12:49, Frank Krygowski wrote:





If you want lots of cycling mode share, it's necessary to actively

dissuade motoring, as the Dutch do.





While that is true, you have to start somewhere.



Pollies need a little baiting. They need to see reward for effort.

They won't do something just for the good of the public - it has to be

popular too.



Making motor vehicle use less attractive, when motor vehicle use is so

ingrained, is a difficult thing to sell.



Get a few more people riding. Attract tourists. Get a vocal part of

the community behind it. Gradually persuade the general public it's not

so bad. Slowly reduce car access. Make cycling easier (no helmets

would help obviously).



It's an evolutionary change, not an overnight thing. It'll take

generations, IMO.



I mentioned the same to a staunch facilities man recently. He told me I

used the term evolution incorrectly.



Oh well.



--

JS

There's a lot of opportunity out there. The problem is that the cyclists, with very rare exceptions, are not politicians. They're clumsy in their handling of the pollies, to say the least. I have hope for this Hunter scheme because I know at least one of the people involved, and he's a jollier-along.. He might get something done where full-frontal confrontation and lane-taking has already failed.

Andre Jute

On Monday, September 1, 2014 12:34:31 AM UTC+1, Phil W Lee wrote:
Andre Jute don't write to me considered Sat, 30 Aug 2014 15:32:30
-0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:
Aaargh! The gracious thing, Franki-boy, if you can't wish another cyclist good luck, is to shut your gob.

I read as far as "Stevenage and Milton Keynes". You should discover when these "model towns" were built, Franki-boy, and what leftover wartime restrictions on buying cars were released at the same time. As usual, you don't know what the **** you're talking about because you presume conditions are the same as on your street corner.

They aren't now, and they weren't then.

Andre Jute

Stop writing crap, Andie-boy, and get back to your valve driven audio
fantasies in your boggy backwater.

Yo, Philius Billious, if your hands are ever steady enough to take measurements on 1600 live volts, you can come sneer, though I doubt you'll want to, once you have sampled the transcendal experience of the sound I achieve from 80 single-ended watts.

I've worked in Stevenage, visit Milton Keynes regularly

And that is as far as I read. I don't have time to waste on the habitues of Stevenage and Milton Keynes. My friends have more culture than to be seen dead in such places.

Andre Jute
Leaving the rest of Billious Philious' wretched whine for the record
NO MORE SENSE IN THIS POST

(although not

as rarely as I'd like, despite it not being far away - it's horrible),

lived in Basingstoke, and have relations in Telford, and the situation

is exactly as Frank describes it.



Telford, of course, was the site of the now infamous episode when a

cyclist was charged and convicted with the heinous offence of using

the public highway on a bicycle (although eventually a good precedent

was set when that was overturned at appeal), just because there was a

nearby cycleway (covered in glass and heading in the wrong direction).



The removal of wartime restrictions had nothing to do with it - the

fact that they also spread the places out so much, didn't give even

minimal maintenance to the cycleways (so they were - and still are, to

the best of my knowledge - minefields of broken glass and dog mess, in

between the weeds), gave minimal (if any) signposting on the cycle

routes, but provided (at MUCH greater expense) enormous and well

signed motoring infrastructure (most of which was empty when it was

built, because the ordinary man-in-the-street simply couldn't afford a

car) had far more to do with it.

In the UK, it was extremely unusual for any but the wealthy to buy a

new car until the late 70s at least, and didn't become "normal" for

some time after that.

New cars were almost entirely bought by businesses, so if there was a

new car on the drive, it was a good bet that it was a company car.

Normal people bought used, and learned to deal with the fact that most

used cars were almost worn out before the original owners sold them.

But it was the huge public expenditure on motoring infrastructure that

promoted the use of the car, and still does.

And that same infrastructure is a huge barrier to cycling, because it

needs to be avoided by all but the most confident cyclists (which

means going miles out of your way).



On Saturday, August 30, 2014 3:42:20 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/30/2014 5:48 AM, Andre Jute wrote:



Melbourne, eat your heart out: "Hunter could be the cycling capital of Australia".







http://www.theherald.com.au/story/25...tralia/?cs=303







The guys behind the scheme want the government to commit A$75m to bicycling infrastructure.



(Not fiddly cheap local cosmetis that might as well be designed to kill



cyclists, real infrastructure.)



See the map at the URL above. If it comes off, it will be a model region.







Wow. Maybe they'll be as successful as Stevenage and Milton Keynes in



Britain, with their designed-in-from-the-start superhighways for bikes,



built with underpasses instead of road intersections, allowing easy



access all across the towns with almost no interactions with motor vehicles.







Just think! As with Stevenage and Milton Keynes, the bike modal share



might rise to as much as... well, 3%. At least, that's what those



towns have had. Not so impressive after all.







From http://www.roadswerenotbuiltforcars.com/stevenage/







"The cycleways were mostly flat and there were cycle and pedestrian



bridges, and underpasses which wouldn�t have looked out of place in the



Netherlands at the time, mainly because they were modelled on Dutch



infrastructure. Stevenage was compact and Claxton [the designer] assumed



the provision of 12ft wide cycle paths and 7ft wide footways � separated



by grass strips as a minimum, and sometimes barriers, too � would



encourage residents to cycle and walk everywhere. He had witnessed high



usage of cycle tracks in the Netherlands and believed the same could be



achieved in the UK.







"Instead � to Claxton�s puzzlement, and eventual horror � residents of



Stevenage chose to drive, not cycle, even for journeys of two miles or



less."







"... Squint and, where the infrastructure is intact, under the



roundabouts for instance, and you could be in the Netherlands. Except



there are very few people on bikes."







Trendy Portland's bike mode share has stayed flat for several years,



despite more and more "innovative!" segregated facilities. And despite



the rah-rah headline, this article's



http://urbantimes.co/2014/06/bike-la...crease-biking/



bar graphs make clear that most people riding on "protected" cycle



tracks would have been riding anyway. Only a tiny percentage gave up



their car to use their bike.







Seems clear to me that if you want a large bike modal share (as in, say,



Amsterdam) you've got to undertake strong measures to discourage car use



(as in, say, Amsterdam). We may think it's sad, but most people are



simply not very interested in jumping on their bikes.







--



- Frank Krygowski