A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 20th 18, 06:49 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town

I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly great
bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had lots of
infrastructure. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more than you
can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment will
naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a
fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.

--
- Frank Krygowski
Ads
  #2  
Old March 21st 18, 11:18 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Tim McNamara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town

I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly
great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had
lots of infrastructure. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more
than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment
will naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a
fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.


The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are
rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but
does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats on that. I am
doubtful but I could be wrong.
  #3  
Old March 23rd 18, 07:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town

I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's truly
great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before they had
lots of infrastructure. Change the culture. Create cyclists... more
than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then the built environment
will naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending a
fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.


The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people are
rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing cyclists, but
does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats on that. I am
doubtful but I could be wrong.


For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].

Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west of the West Hills.

Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes unless it is flat, placed near town or some work destination, the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous." Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know. She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities. https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300 BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular basis.

-- Jay Beattie.
  #4  
Old March 24th 18, 03:21 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town



I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's
truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before
they had lots of infrastructure.



They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure.
That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days
people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only
the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic
example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike
infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling.

IOW if you don't build it they'll leave.


Change the culture. Create
cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then
the built environment will naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending
a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.


The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people
are rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing
cyclists, but does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats
on that. I am doubtful but I could be wrong.



There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular
Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure
has phenomenal growth:

https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903

It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for
restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow.


For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and
riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a
suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I
have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me
how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the
rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in
an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I
would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the
weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].

Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the
rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then
this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives
seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good
with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west
of the West Hills.

Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes
unless it is flat, ...



Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which
were all quite hilly.


... placed near town or some work destination, ...



Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head.


... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous."



Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in
the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know.



That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders
object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not
wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does.


... She's
afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300
BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks
will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will
bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in,
it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and
are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the
young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big
engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's
not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular
basis.


It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen
other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not
foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial
garage queen owners.

I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike
paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's
just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if
there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #5  
Old March 24th 18, 05:04 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On 3/24/2018 10:21 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town




I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's
truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before
they had lots of infrastructure.



They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure.
That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days
people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only
the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic
example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike
infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling.

IOW if you don't build it they'll leave.


Â*Change the culture.Â* Create
cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine.Â* If you do, then
the built environment will naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending
a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.

The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people
are rightly suspicious of.Â* That infrastructure draws existing
cyclists, but does it add to them?Â* I'm sure someone has some stats
on that.Â* I am doubtful but I could be wrong.



There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular
Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure
has phenomenal growth:

https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903

It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for
restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow.


For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and
riding the same bank of elevators every morning.Â* No, this is not a
suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I
have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me
how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the
rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in
an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I
would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the
weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].

Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the
rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then
this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives
seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good
with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west
of the West Hills.

Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes
unless it is flat, ...



Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which
were all quite hilly.


Â* ... placed near town or some work destination, ...



Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head.


Â*... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous."



Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in
the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


...Â* Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know.



That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders
object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not
wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does.


Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ...Â* She's
afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300

BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility.Â* Those folks
will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will
bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in,
it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and
are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the
young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big
engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's
not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular
basis.


It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen
other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not
foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial
garage queen owners.

I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike
paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's
just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if
there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens.


Joerg, you have convinced "some" to start riding again. Wonderful - but
how many is "some"? Did you get the local bike mode share above 10%?
Above 3%? No, "some" probably means three people rode their bikes for a
while. Odds are they will soon find something else to do.

Let's recall that despite all the rah-rah news tied to the thousands of
various bike facilities built in the past decades, bike mode share is
still microscopic:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...t_popular.html

Let's recall that during the years when a lawsuit prevented almost ANY
bike construction in San Francisco, cycling still rose in popularity as
much as it did in cities that were painting their roads green and
shuttling cyclists into chutes. It was fashionable to ride, so people
rode. No infrastructure necessary.

And lets recall that fashion is powerful but temporary. The current
increases in bike use are not as great as the surge in the early 1970s.
These modest increases are probably tied more to trendiness than to
weird segregated facilities. And the trendiness may last no longer than
the tie-dyed bell bottoms, disco, cabbage patch dolls or fidget spinners.

I think those who love riding bicycles will ride. Everyone else will
travel by the most convenient method available. Some of those "others"
will be on bikes, but in a country where people drive over 25 miles on a
typical day, most won't give up the car for the bike.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #6  
Old March 24th 18, 05:36 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town



I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's
truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before
they had lots of infrastructure.



They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure.
That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days
people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only
the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic
example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike
infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling.

IOW if you don't build it they'll leave.


Change the culture. Create
cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine. If you do, then
the built environment will naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending
a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.

The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people
are rightly suspicious of. That infrastructure draws existing
cyclists, but does it add to them? I'm sure someone has some stats
on that. I am doubtful but I could be wrong.



There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular
Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure
has phenomenal growth:

https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903

It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for
restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow.


For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and
riding the same bank of elevators every morning. No, this is not a
suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I
have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me
how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the
rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in
an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I
would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the
weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].

Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the
rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then
this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives
seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good
with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west
of the West Hills.

Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes
unless it is flat, ...



Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which
were all quite hilly.


... placed near town or some work destination, ...



Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head.


... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous."



Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in
the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know.



That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders
object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not
wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does.


... She's
afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300
BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those folks
will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will
bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in,
it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and
are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the
young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big
engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's
not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular
basis.


It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen
other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not
foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial
garage queen owners.


I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike
paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's
just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if
there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens.


I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to go for a fun-ride. We're talking about transportation facilities that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat and putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes, although the facilities can be overrun by walkers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking or driving, particularly on Manhattan.

In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3) Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities, and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.

-- Jay Beattie.



  #7  
Old March 24th 18, 07:56 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:


[...]


... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not
"dangerous."



Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't
ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I
know.



That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster
riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like
people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when
everyone else does.


... She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300


BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those
folks will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility --
will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or
close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are
already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly
bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the
spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to
handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on
her bike -- at least not on a regular basis.


It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and
umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who
are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The
proverbial garage queen owners.


I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them
bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy
roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck
their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their
bikes remain garage queens.


I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to
go for a fun-ride.



That does have serious health benefits. People will truck their bikes as
long as there are no routes to the trails that they perceive as safe.

I am also talking about people riding to an evening in town instead of
taking a cab, Uber or Lyft. That is what happened in Manhattan and also
here in Folsom. It reduces vehicle mileage. It does not matter whether
it's their own motor vehicle or someone else's, pollution is pollution.


... We're talking about transportation facilities
that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat ...



It was clearly not flat after putting in the bike infrastructure, as
evidenced. Naturally, any benefit will eventually plateau if either no
more bike paths are built or nearly all people willing to cycle use
their bicycles. In America that's never going to be a large percentage,
as has been evidenced by your elevator talks.


... and
putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes,
although the facilities can be overrun by walkers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking
or driving, particularly on Manhattan.


In NYC it's the same in a motor vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WiJgI3N4A

A typical sign of a space crammed too full of people and one of them
many reasons I will never live in a large city. Beither will my wife and
she grew up in a huge metropolis.

I can't sing like the guy in the video but I have a few train horn
tracks on my MP3 player. Does the job, gently. Once I couldn't resist.
Two girls were walking on singletrack at a section next to old railroad
tracks. One of them walked on a rail so they could talk. I rode up very
quietly and then turned on the MP3 track with the big Union Pacific
locomotive sound, including horn. There hasn't been a large train since
the 80's but the reaction was priceless.


In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the
facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the
riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3)
Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in
PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities,
and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if
you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my
speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.


Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you start
with a very low number cycling never gets started. For example, I
regularly cycle through this underpass and then with the lights on full
bore and at max speed. Even very seasoned local cyclists refuse to do
that. Except for one of them they all took the "chicken exit", riding
slowly on the side walk. Of course that is technically illegal but also
a major hassle when coming from the other side as there is only a
sidewalk on one side. Just one example of many.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #8  
Old March 24th 18, 08:00 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Joerg[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,016
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On 2018-03-24 11:56, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:


[...]


... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not
"dangerous."


Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't
ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I
know.


That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster
riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like
people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when
everyone else does.


... She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300



BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those
folks will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility --
will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or
close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are
already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly
bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the
spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to
handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on
her bike -- at least not on a regular basis.


It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and
umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who
are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The
proverbial garage queen owners.


I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them
bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy
roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck
their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their
bikes remain garage queens.


I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to
go for a fun-ride.



That does have serious health benefits. People will truck their bikes as
long as there are no routes to the trails that they perceive as safe.

I am also talking about people riding to an evening in town instead of
taking a cab, Uber or Lyft. That is what happened in Manhattan and also
here in Folsom. It reduces vehicle mileage. It does not matter whether
it's their own motor vehicle or someone else's, pollution is pollution.


... We're talking about transportation facilities
that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat ...



It was clearly not flat after putting in the bike infrastructure, as
evidenced. Naturally, any benefit will eventually plateau if either no
more bike paths are built or nearly all people willing to cycle use
their bicycles. In America that's never going to be a large percentage,
as has been evidenced by your elevator talks.


... and
putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes,
although the facilities can be overrun by walkers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking
or driving, particularly on Manhattan.


In NYC it's the same in a motor vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WiJgI3N4A

A typical sign of a space crammed too full of people and one of them
many reasons I will never live in a large city. Beither will my wife and
she grew up in a huge metropolis.

I can't sing like the guy in the video but I have a few train horn
tracks on my MP3 player. Does the job, gently. Once I couldn't resist.
Two girls were walking on singletrack at a section next to old railroad
tracks. One of them walked on a rail so they could talk. I rode up very
quietly and then turned on the MP3 track with the big Union Pacific
locomotive sound, including horn. There hasn't been a large train since
the 80's but the reaction was priceless.


In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the
facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the
riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3)
Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in
PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities,
and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if
you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my
speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.


Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you start
with a very low number cycling never gets started. For example, I
regularly cycle through this underpass and then with the lights on full
bore and at max speed. Even very seasoned local cyclists refuse to do
that. Except for one of them they all took the "chicken exit", riding
slowly on the side walk. Of course that is technically illegal but also
a major hassle when coming from the other side as there is only a
sidewalk on one side. Just one example of many.


Sorry, forgot the link:

https://goo.gl/maps/avgYWtt9f4C2

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/
  #9  
Old March 24th 18, 08:46 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 9:04:28 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2018 10:21 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:18:52 PM UTC-7, Tim McNamara
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 13:49:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/...-friendly-town




I thought this was particularly sensible: "I've spent enough time in
Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Malmo to realize that the world's
truly great bicycle friendly places had lots of bicyclists before
they had lots of infrastructure.



They would have lost all that had they not built the infrastructure.
That happened time and again, including here in the US. In the old days
people rode because they could simply not afford a motor vehicle. Only
the doctor, the factory owner and the mayor could. Germany is a classic
example where ridership plummeted while DK and NL built a bike
infrastructure and, consequently, many people kept cycling.

IOW if you don't build it they'll leave.


Â*Change the culture.Â* Create
cyclists... more than you can possibly imagine.Â* If you do, then
the built environment will naturally follow."

I'm not saying it's easy. It's just more sensible than spending
a fortune hoping to build an Amsterdam.

The "if you build it, they will pedal" approach that many people
are rightly suspicious of.Â* That infrastructure draws existing
cyclists, but does it add to them?Â* I'm sure someone has some stats
on that.Â* I am doubtful but I could be wrong.


There are lots of examples, one of the being NYC and in particular
Manhattan. If has now leveled off which was to be expected but they sure
has phenomenal growth:

https://www.amny.com/transit/cycling...nyc-1.17556903

It has also resulted in extra business revenuw especially for
restaurants and pubs which also translates into more tax flow.


For the last 30 years, I've been cycling to the same building and
riding the same bank of elevators every morning.Â* No, this is not a
suicide note -- just background on the reoccurring conversation I
have with would-be cyclists. Once or twice a week, someone asks me
how far I ride or makes some comment on the fact that I rode in the
rain, snow, wind (whatever -- most comments came when I was riding in
an ortho-boot after my ski fractures), and then I get the excuse. "I
would ride except that [it is too far, there are too many hills, the
weather sucks, it is "dangerous" or "other"].

Yesterday, I was standing in the elevator, dripping wet from the
rain, and I got the usual question about how far I ride, and then
this early middle-aged, somewhat overweight woman tells me she lives
seven miles away but that there are two big hills, and she's not good
with hills. Hills are a serious impediment for people who live west
of the West Hills.

Anyway, no infrastructure is going to get a lot more people on bikes
unless it is flat, ...



Not so. At least not out here and not in all the places I lived which
were all quite hilly.


Â* ... placed near town or some work destination, ...



Not so either. They just truck their bikes to the trail head.


Â*... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not "dangerous."



Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't ride in
the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


...Â* Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I know.



That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster riders
object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like people not
wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when everyone else does.


Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ...Â* She's
afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300

BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility.Â* Those folks
will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility -- will
bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or close-in,
it will probably just collect those people who are already riding and
are willing to make a real effort. A hilly bike path will attract the
young but somewhat timid and the spin-class heros who have big
engines but don't know how to handle themselves on the roads. It's
not going to get granny on her bike -- at least not on a regular
basis.


It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and umpteen
other examples. However, many of those will be people who are not
foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The proverbial
garage queen owners.

I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them bike
paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy roads. That's
just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck their bikes there, if
there isn't then they don't ride and their bikes remain garage queens.


Joerg, you have convinced "some" to start riding again. Wonderful - but
how many is "some"? Did you get the local bike mode share above 10%?
Above 3%? No, "some" probably means three people rode their bikes for a
while. Odds are they will soon find something else to do.

Let's recall that despite all the rah-rah news tied to the thousands of
various bike facilities built in the past decades, bike mode share is
still microscopic:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...t_popular.html

Let's recall that during the years when a lawsuit prevented almost ANY
bike construction in San Francisco, cycling still rose in popularity as
much as it did in cities that were painting their roads green and
shuttling cyclists into chutes. It was fashionable to ride, so people
rode. No infrastructure necessary.

And lets recall that fashion is powerful but temporary. The current
increases in bike use are not as great as the surge in the early 1970s.
These modest increases are probably tied more to trendiness than to
weird segregated facilities. And the trendiness may last no longer than
the tie-dyed bell bottoms, disco, cabbage patch dolls or fidget spinners.

I think those who love riding bicycles will ride. Everyone else will
travel by the most convenient method available. Some of those "others"
will be on bikes, but in a country where people drive over 25 miles on a
typical day, most won't give up the car for the bike.


Facilities in some places will increase ridership -- but determining the effect of the facility on the increase is really hard. There are billions of riders in the new south waterfront cycle track that weren't there 30 years ago. Nobody was there 30 years ago except me and some crack-heads, back when it was a pot-holed road through a warehouse district and former shipyard. Now it is a massive condo development -- a pop-up mini-city for the hipster urbanites. I think it is blight and preferred the empty, rutted road, but now it's crawling with people, streetcars, buses, aerial trams -- and cyclists.

On the other hand, millions were spent on the HWY 205 bike path, and I never see anyone riding out there or way out on Burnside in the pin-head region.. You can put in awesome facilities, and the locals won't give a sh** if they're a bunch of mullet-heads tossing 40 ouncers out their car windows. You have to have people who want to ride. I only ride those facilities when I'm getting out to the Gorge. It's nice having them, but not much ROI.

-- Jay Beattie.

  #10  
Old March 25th 18, 03:37 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,870
Default Nice article on naturally bike-friendly towns

On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 11:56:40 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-24 09:36, jbeattie wrote:
On Saturday, March 24, 2018 at 7:21:19 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2018-03-23 11:53, jbeattie wrote:


[...]


... the weather is generally O.K. and that it is not
"dangerous."


Correct. Most will not ride on busy thoroughfares and most won't
ride in the rain or when it's too cold or hot.


... Dangerous can be other bicycles according to one fit woman I
know.


That I haven't heard, ever. It's just that some of the faster
riders object to having to slow down so much before passing. Like
people not wanting to head out for a road trip in their car when
everyone else does.


... She's afraid of other bicyclists in the crowded facilities.
https://bikeportland.org/2011/06/22/...r-photos-55300


BTW, the "other" category is simply never-will-ride people making
excuses like busy schedules and general impossibility. Those
folks will never ride.

Just removing danger -- like building a separated facility --
will bring out some additional riders, but if it is not flat or
close-in, it will probably just collect those people who are
already riding and are willing to make a real effort. A hilly
bike path will attract the young but somewhat timid and the
spin-class heros who have big engines but don't know how to
handle themselves on the roads. It's not going to get granny on
her bike -- at least not on a regular basis.


It is going to get a lot of people onto bikes, see Manhattan and
umpteen other examples. However, many of those will be people who
are not foreign to riding but generally don't ride (anymore). The
proverbial garage queen owners.


I have convinced some to start riding again after showing them
bike paths and singletrack. They simply will not ride on busy
roads. That's just how it is. If there is a bike path they truck
their bikes there, if there isn't then they don't ride and their
bikes remain garage queens.


I'm not talking about people trucking their bikes to trail heads to
go for a fun-ride.



That does have serious health benefits. People will truck their bikes as
long as there are no routes to the trails that they perceive as safe.

I am also talking about people riding to an evening in town instead of
taking a cab, Uber or Lyft. That is what happened in Manhattan and also
here in Folsom. It reduces vehicle mileage. It does not matter whether
it's their own motor vehicle or someone else's, pollution is pollution.


... We're talking about transportation facilities
that promote bicycling in lieu of driving. NYC is dead flat ...



It was clearly not flat after putting in the bike infrastructure, as
evidenced. Naturally, any benefit will eventually plateau if either no
more bike paths are built or nearly all people willing to cycle use
their bicycles. In America that's never going to be a large percentage,
as has been evidenced by your elevator talks.


"Flat" meaning topographically flat.



... and
putting in facilities undoubtedly got some people on to bikes,
although the facilities can be overrun by walkers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehh8ZdIMMj4 They still beat walking
or driving, particularly on Manhattan.


In NYC it's the same in a motor vehicle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8WiJgI3N4A

A typical sign of a space crammed too full of people and one of them
many reasons I will never live in a large city. Beither will my wife and
she grew up in a huge metropolis.

I can't sing like the guy in the video but I have a few train horn
tracks on my MP3 player. Does the job, gently. Once I couldn't resist.
Two girls were walking on singletrack at a section next to old railroad
tracks. One of them walked on a rail so they could talk. I rode up very
quietly and then turned on the MP3 track with the big Union Pacific
locomotive sound, including horn. There hasn't been a large train since
the 80's but the reaction was priceless.


In some neighborhoods of PDX, the bike mode-share is 25%, and the
facilities in those areas are relatively minimal. What brings out the
riders is: (1) flat, (2) compact, close in neighborhood, and (3)
Bohemian population. Far more riders were created by the culture in
PDX than the facilities. On some streets, there are zero facilities,
and the cyclists just take over -- which is really frustrating if
you're in a car. When I ride in the lane, I at least try to keep my
speed up. Many dawdle with their eight-ball helmets and ringy-bells.


Once you have a large enough number of cyclists that works. If you start
with a very low number cycling never gets started.


Except that it did in Portland. Most of the infrastructure followed a surge in cycling, driven in large part by an influx of young creatives. The roads were fine for riding because they were not that busy and there were and are alternative routes through the neighborhoods. A lot of my commute routes still involve ordinary roads with no bike lanes, and most of my weekend riding is on rural roads with no shoulders.

Again, I'm not against infrastructure. It has its place, and its particularly valuable if there are no usable roads or where there are lots of bicycles and it relieves traffic pressure. Bikes are traffic, and having a lane for bikes moves traffic.

But putting in bike lanes did not create the bicycle traffic in Portland, at least not initially. Facilities are now necessary just to handle the volume, and the bike lanes and other facilities undoubtedly brought out some more cyclists -- but figuring out who those are would take some effort and not just guessing. I much preferred the old roads to some new separated facilities, but with minor exception, I do like all the bike lanes. I would settle for a wide shoulder, though. It really makes no difference to me except that a bike lane gives me right of way and a shoulder doesn't -- but that doesn't make much difference if motorists don't know the rules.

-- Jay Beattie.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nice bicycling article in Washington Post Frank Krygowski[_2_] General 8 August 7th 08 02:47 AM
Nice Herald Tribune article Mark McNeill UK 0 May 6th 06 04:43 PM
Nice Retro Lemond Article B. Lafferty Racing 10 October 4th 05 07:58 PM
Nice Bike Industry Article TBF::. Mountain Biking 22 December 7th 04 10:00 PM
Bike towns Steven General 5 August 3rd 03 10:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.