A small bicycle infrastructure victory in my city, thanks to me.

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 12:26:25 AM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah yes, two lanes of bumper to bumper automobiles and 12 bicycles :-)



Unfortunately the US census data for the period 2008 - 2012 that I've
searched (the most unbiased I've found) does not list the N.W. as a
separate entity but does list the West. The figures are, for Large,
medium and small cities Walk = 3.4% Cycle = 2%, Medium cities 2.7/0.1
small cities 2.8/ 2 and Total 3.0 and 2%.

As I wrote above, such a tiny segment.

In the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, 25% of trips are by bike. http://www.cityclock.org/top-10-cycl.../#.VvS8_PkrI2w

-- Jay Beattie.

always interesting list....weather terrain need sport mass hysteria in crowd

muh brain grumbles incessantly as I consider assembling the stats for evaluating this nonsense....ahhh but here we see warm climates at the end butbutbut Tucson ? who would ride T in the spring summer fall ? Mr. Plently ?

possibly

always suspect.

so Hoseford is recommended for my next pass thru to the Deschutes ?

Buddy recommends pizza at Boulder. Know any good pizza in Hoseford ?

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 4:02:24 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:26:22 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah yes, two lanes of bumper to bumper automobiles and 12 bicycles :-)



Unfortunately the US census data for the period 2008 - 2012 that I've
searched (the most unbiased I've found) does not list the N.W. as a
separate entity but does list the West. The figures are, for Large,
medium and small cities Walk = 3.4% Cycle = 2%, Medium cities 2.7/0.1
small cities 2.8/ 2 and Total 3.0 and 2%.

As I wrote above, such a tiny segment.

In the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, 25% of trips are by bike. http://www.cityclock.org/top-10-cycl.../#.VvS8_PkrI2w

-- Jay Beattie.

Very possible true. But to be realistic, does the activities in a
single district, with a population (2010 census) of 7,336, become an
important factor in a metropolitan population of 2,348,247 (in 2014).
That is 0.3% of the population.

Yes -- when that population represents a significant portion of the downtown work force. Like I said, one Portland bridge out of eight accessible by cyclists gets thousands of bike trips per day that would have been made by car. http://bikeportland.org/2015/10/02/t...-bridge-164198 Our newest bridge for pedestrians/cyclists and trains has taken some of the old load and apparently attracted some new riders.

We have a compressed downtown with short blocks, narrow streets and lots of congestion. This is a place -- at least coming from the eastside -- where cycling can work. I've ridden to work here for 30 years because getting to work by bike is more convenient and usually faster than driving. Getting people on their bikes in this area does relieve some auto congestion, but with population increases, it's pretty invisible -- except during spring break. The last few days have been like a ghost town.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 3/25/2016 10:30 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Like I said, one Portland bridge out of eight accessible by cyclists gets thousands of bike trips per day that would have been made by car.

Well, ISTR there are lots of Portlanders traveling by other means - bus,
trolley, light rail, walking. I'd guess that a fair number of
bicyclists would still have been using some alternate transportation.

http://bikeportland.org/2015/10/02/t...-bridge-164198 Our newest bridge for pedestrians/cyclists and trains has taken some of the old load and apparently attracted some new riders.

Given the major goof in that article's data, it's hard to know what the
new bridge really did! Maybe the best evaluation would add a lot of
"maybe" statements, followed by a big "we'll see, eventually."

We have a compressed downtown with short blocks, narrow streets and lots of congestion. This is a place -- at least coming from the eastside -- where cycling can work.

That's true, and it confirms what I've been saying for a long time -
that other factors are at least as important as the bike infrastructure.
The "Build it and they will come" propaganda needs to include things
like "If and only if the city is pretty flat, very dense, inconvenient
to drive and park, has a hip population..."

Portland's pretty unique for a U.S. city in that it checks off a lot of
those boxes. And while I disagree with some of its approaches
(especially those that reinforce the "danger" of riding without
facilities & helmets), its bike mode share is high for a U.S. city.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 8:18:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2016 10:30 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Like I said, one Portland bridge out of eight accessible by cyclists gets thousands of bike trips per day that would have been made by car.

Well, ISTR there are lots of Portlanders traveling by other means - bus,
trolley, light rail, walking. I'd guess that a fair number of
bicyclists would still have been using some alternate transportation.

http://bikeportland.org/2015/10/02/t...-bridge-164198 Our newest bridge for pedestrians/cyclists and trains has taken some of the old load and apparently attracted some new riders.

Given the major goof in that article's data, it's hard to know what the
new bridge really did! Maybe the best evaluation would add a lot of
"maybe" statements, followed by a big "we'll see, eventually."

We have a compressed downtown with short blocks, narrow streets and lots of congestion. This is a place -- at least coming from the eastside -- where cycling can work.

That's true, and it confirms what I've been saying for a long time -
that other factors are at least as important as the bike infrastructure.
The "Build it and they will come" propaganda needs to include things
like "If and only if the city is pretty flat, very dense, inconvenient
to drive and park, has a hip population..."

Portland's pretty unique for a U.S. city in that it checks off a lot of
those boxes. And while I disagree with some of its approaches
(especially those that reinforce the "danger" of riding without
facilities & helmets), its bike mode share is high for a U.S. city.

I think infrastructure does increase ridership, the question for me is "at what cost." I don't think that it pays to build bicycle Habitrails for the agoraphobic hold-outs. That's too expensive. Counseling would be more cost-effective.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 2016-03-24 17:22, Phil W Lee wrote:
Joerg considered Thu, 24 Mar 2016
15:04:50 -0700 the perfect time to write:

On 2016-03-23 18:39, John B. wrote:

[...]


Those who use bicycles in a deluded attempt to prove how intrepid and
dauntless they are could easily take up sky-diving or bungee-jumping.


It's fun, and not just the free fall part of it. Never tried the bungee
jumping though.

With the failure rate you manage for bicycle components, I would
recommend you don't.


The quality of that stuff is higher than bike stuff. I did about 100
parachute jumps and never had anything fail. Never needed the spare.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

On 25/03/2016 12:17 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 8:18:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2016 10:30 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Like I said, one Portland bridge out of eight accessible by cyclists gets thousands of bike trips per day that would have been made by car.

Well, ISTR there are lots of Portlanders traveling by other means - bus,
trolley, light rail, walking. I'd guess that a fair number of
bicyclists would still have been using some alternate transportation.

http://bikeportland.org/2015/10/02/t...-bridge-164198 Our newest bridge for pedestrians/cyclists and trains has taken some of the old load and apparently attracted some new riders.

Given the major goof in that article's data, it's hard to know what the
new bridge really did! Maybe the best evaluation would add a lot of
"maybe" statements, followed by a big "we'll see, eventually."

We have a compressed downtown with short blocks, narrow streets and lots of congestion. This is a place -- at least coming from the eastside -- where cycling can work.

That's true, and it confirms what I've been saying for a long time -
that other factors are at least as important as the bike infrastructure.
The "Build it and they will come" propaganda needs to include things
like "If and only if the city is pretty flat, very dense, inconvenient
to drive and park, has a hip population..."

Portland's pretty unique for a U.S. city in that it checks off a lot of
those boxes. And while I disagree with some of its approaches
(especially those that reinforce the "danger" of riding without
facilities & helmets), its bike mode share is high for a U.S. city.

I think infrastructure does increase ridership, the question for me is "at what cost." I don't think that it pays to build bicycle Habitrails for the agoraphobic hold-outs. That's too expensive. Counseling would be more cost-effective.



If I go down to the old port on a Saturday I can see the overcrowded
bike paths from the street where I'm riding. That's a whole ****load of
people that aren't in my way at that moment. g Maybe I'm the
agoraphobic...

Seriously, in a place where the government supplies health care, it's
probably worth it for them to get people on bikes. Traffic reduction
isn't the only consideration. Cycling makes people healthier - even if
they're only doing it for fun.

On 3/25/2016 11:17 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 8:18:48 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/25/2016 10:30 AM, jbeattie wrote:
Like I said, one Portland bridge out of eight accessible by cyclists gets thousands of bike trips per day that would have been made by car.

Well, ISTR there are lots of Portlanders traveling by other means - bus,
trolley, light rail, walking. I'd guess that a fair number of
bicyclists would still have been using some alternate transportation.

http://bikeportland.org/2015/10/02/t...-bridge-164198 Our newest bridge for pedestrians/cyclists and trains has taken some of the old load and apparently attracted some new riders.

Given the major goof in that article's data, it's hard to know what the
new bridge really did! Maybe the best evaluation would add a lot of
"maybe" statements, followed by a big "we'll see, eventually."

We have a compressed downtown with short blocks, narrow streets and lots of congestion. This is a place -- at least coming from the eastside -- where cycling can work.

That's true, and it confirms what I've been saying for a long time -
that other factors are at least as important as the bike infrastructure.
The "Build it and they will come" propaganda needs to include things
like "If and only if the city is pretty flat, very dense, inconvenient
to drive and park, has a hip population..."

Portland's pretty unique for a U.S. city in that it checks off a lot of
those boxes. And while I disagree with some of its approaches
(especially those that reinforce the "danger" of riding without
facilities & helmets), its bike mode share is high for a U.S. city.

I think infrastructure does increase ridership, the question for me is "at what cost." I don't think that it pays to build bicycle Habitrails for the agoraphobic hold-outs. That's too expensive. Counseling would be more cost-effective.

-- Jay Beattie.


Seemingly a good idea but there's not much net positive
effect. Expenses just keep flowing:

http://ktla.com/2016/03/24/flames-to...in-sun-valley/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:30:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 4:02:24 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:26:22 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah yes, two lanes of bumper to bumper automobiles and 12 bicycles :-)



Unfortunately the US census data for the period 2008 - 2012 that I've
searched (the most unbiased I've found) does not list the N.W. as a
separate entity but does list the West. The figures are, for Large,
medium and small cities Walk = 3.4% Cycle = 2%, Medium cities 2.7/0.1
small cities 2.8/ 2 and Total 3.0 and 2%.

As I wrote above, such a tiny segment.

In the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, 25% of trips are by bike. http://www.cityclock.org/top-10-cycl.../#.VvS8_PkrI2w

-- Jay Beattie.

Very possible true. But to be realistic, does the activities in a
single district, with a population (2010 census) of 7,336, become an
important factor in a metropolitan population of 2,348,247 (in 2014).
That is 0.3% of the population.

Yes -- when that population represents a significant portion of the downtown work force. Like I said, one Portland bridge out of eight accessible by cyclists gets thousands of bike trips per day that would have been made by car. http://bikeportland.org/2015/10/02/t...-bridge-164198 Our newest bridge for pedestrians/cyclists and trains has taken some of the old load and apparently attracted some new riders.

We have a compressed downtown with short blocks, narrow streets and lots of congestion. This is a place -- at least coming from the eastside -- where cycling can work. I've ridden to work here for 30 years because getting to work by bike is more convenient and usually faster than driving. Getting people on their bikes in this area does relieve some auto congestion, but with population increases, it's pretty invisible -- except during spring break. The last few days have been like a ghost town.

-- Jay Beattie.


Yup, the bike counters counted an average of 7,050 bicycles crossing
the Hawthorne Bridge, on a week day, in August 2014 and 3,540 in
February of the same year. But again is this significant in a area
with more then 2 million people?

That is roughly 0.3% of the population in August and 0.1% in the
depths of winter.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:23:18 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:30:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 4:02:24 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:26:22 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians..

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah yes, two lanes of bumper to bumper automobiles and 12 bicycles :-)



Unfortunately the US census data for the period 2008 - 2012 that I've
searched (the most unbiased I've found) does not list the N.W. as a
separate entity but does list the West. The figures are, for Large,
medium and small cities Walk = 3.4% Cycle = 2%, Medium cities 2..7/0.1
small cities 2.8/ 2 and Total 3.0 and 2%.

As I wrote above, such a tiny segment.

In the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, 25% of trips are by bike. http://www.cityclock.org/top-10-cycl.../#.VvS8_PkrI2w

-- Jay Beattie.

Very possible true. But to be realistic, does the activities in a
single district, with a population (2010 census) of 7,336, become an
important factor in a metropolitan population of 2,348,247 (in 2014).
That is 0.3% of the population.

Yes -- when that population represents a significant portion of the downtown work force. Like I said, one Portland bridge out of eight accessible by cyclists gets thousands of bike trips per day that would have been made by car. http://bikeportland.org/2015/10/02/t...-bridge-164198 Our newest bridge for pedestrians/cyclists and trains has taken some of the old load and apparently attracted some new riders.

We have a compressed downtown with short blocks, narrow streets and lots of congestion. This is a place -- at least coming from the eastside -- where cycling can work. I've ridden to work here for 30 years because getting to work by bike is more convenient and usually faster than driving. Getting people on their bikes in this area does relieve some auto congestion, but with population increases, it's pretty invisible -- except during spring break. The last few days have been like a ghost town.

-- Jay Beattie.


Yup, the bike counters counted an average of 7,050 bicycles crossing
the Hawthorne Bridge, on a week day, in August 2014 and 3,540 in
February of the same year. But again is this significant in a area
with more then 2 million people?

That is roughly 0.3% of the population in August and 0.1% in the
depths of winter.

--
cheers,

John B.

Yes it's significant if you consider the effects an additional 3,500 to 7,050 motor vehicles would have on that same crossing.

Cheers

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:25:22 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 9:23:18 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:30:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 4:02:24 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:26:22 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:08:17 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:06:58 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 8:06:06 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:42:27 -0700, sms
wrote:

We have a "Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission" in my city, that does very
little when it comes to advocating for cyclists and pedestrians.

I seem to have found an effective way of getting the city to address
cycling issues. I show up at a city council meeting with photographs of
a problem and speak about it during "oral communications" where you can
speak for 3 minutes on any subject not on the meeting agenda.

Once you speak, there is a record of what you presented since all
meetings are streamed and archived. If it's a legitimate safety issue
then the city has to address it or they could be held liable should
something bad occur.

In February I spoke about the problem of vehicles parking in bicycle
lanes. The sheriff had told me that he could not have his deputies
ticket motorists "stopped" in the bicycle lane who were waiting to turn
right (for as long as 30 minutes because there was no open driveway to
turn right into) because they were not "parked" they were just
"stopped." Actually he could have ticketed them but the sheriff's
deputies are not very familiar with the nuances of the vehicle code.

I suggested that the "No Parking" signs be changed to "No Stopping"
signs, so the deputies could ticket drivers stopped in the bike lanes.
Apparently the Public Works Director and the city attorney decided that
this was a good idea and they have started to change the signs,
beginning with the known problem areas.

Given that the bicycle population is such a tiny portion of the
highway users - one writer estimated about 2%, while the U.S. census
states 1% for the 50 largest U.S. cities - wouldn't the more logical
move be to just forbid bicycles the use of the roads?

We read of attacks on cyclists, the throwing of beer cans and even
cars stopping and drivers leaping out into the fray, and as cyclists
represent such a tiny portion of those who use the roads, to both
protect themselves as well as others (half, or in some cases more than
half, of motor vehicle - bicycle collisions are deemed to be the fault
of the bicycle) it would appear that such a ban would protect both the
cyclists as well as the general public, from the foolish and dangerous
acts of this almost microscopic percent of the population who, almost
universally, also own a motor vehicle.

Hardly microscopic around here. http://tinyurl.com/gl8h8sb http://tinyurl.com/glk7txg http://tinyurl.com/huw4zrd

-- Jay Beattie.

Ah yes, two lanes of bumper to bumper automobiles and 12 bicycles :-)



Unfortunately the US census data for the period 2008 - 2012 that I've
searched (the most unbiased I've found) does not list the N.W. as a
separate entity but does list the West. The figures are, for Large,
medium and small cities Walk = 3.4% Cycle = 2%, Medium cities 2.7/0.1
small cities 2.8/ 2 and Total 3.0 and 2%.

As I wrote above, such a tiny segment.

In the Hosford-Abernethy neighborhood, 25% of trips are by bike. http://www.cityclock.org/top-10-cycl.../#.VvS8_PkrI2w

-- Jay Beattie.

Very possible true. But to be realistic, does the activities in a
single district, with a population (2010 census) of 7,336, become an
important factor in a metropolitan population of 2,348,247 (in 2014)..
That is 0.3% of the population.

Yes -- when that population represents a significant portion of the downtown work force. Like I said, one Portland bridge out of eight accessible by cyclists gets thousands of bike trips per day that would have been made by car. http://bikeportland.org/2015/10/02/t...-bridge-164198 Our newest bridge for pedestrians/cyclists and trains has taken some of the old load and apparently attracted some new riders.

We have a compressed downtown with short blocks, narrow streets and lots of congestion. This is a place -- at least coming from the eastside -- where cycling can work. I've ridden to work here for 30 years because getting to work by bike is more convenient and usually faster than driving. Getting people on their bikes in this area does relieve some auto congestion, but with population increases, it's pretty invisible -- except during spring break. The last few days have been like a ghost town.

-- Jay Beattie.


Yup, the bike counters counted an average of 7,050 bicycles crossing
the Hawthorne Bridge, on a week day, in August 2014 and 3,540 in
February of the same year. But again is this significant in a area
with more then 2 million people?

That is roughly 0.3% of the population in August and 0.1% in the
depths of winter.

--
cheers,

John B.

Yes it's significant if you consider the effects an additional 3,500 to 7,050 motor vehicles would have on that same crossing.


Is it Amsterdam . . . no. But it is good for an American city. I don't know why we would want to discourage that. And the encouragement is rather low budget -- bike boulevards (traffic calmed streets with sharrows) and bike lanes and an eastside rail-trail MUP.

-- Jay Beattie.