Re: Commuter innovation

On 4/4/2024 3:28 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

On 4/4/2024 7:48 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 4/3/2024 3:33 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
I'm not cherry picking. Regarding bad design or bad maintenance, I'm
describing what I've seen and what data has revealed in countless cities.

>
You cherry picked one article that you thought supported your position,
and as Jeff pointed out, the article didn't do a very good job of it. If
you're relating 'data from countless cities', we have yet to see any
evidence of it.

>
My main position is that no amount of bike infrastructure will get a
significant number of Americans to switch from cars to bikes. Here's
evidence:
https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/LAB_Where_We_Ride_2016.pdf
>
When Phoenix's 0.6% bike mode share gets it ranked among "Cities with
the most bicyclists," that says a lot.
>
Statewise, in that 2016 data Oregon led with 1.7%. But that's probably
dropped since, because it was dominated by Portland, where cycling has
recently dropped sharply. A typical state's bike mode share is 0.4%
>

The fundamental fact is, so few people are interested in ditching
their cars that it's foolish for municipal governments to spend real
money on either design or maintenance. Funds are limited and budgets
are real, so corners are cut.
>
And about design: Many starry-eyed facility advocates say "It's so
easy!" But totally separate bike paths are impossible in almost all
locations, because commercial land (i.e. where people actually need to
go) is already owned by someone, and is very valuable. There are rare
exceptions (apparently your embankment is one), but pretending that's
somehow normal is blatant cherry picking.

>
It's neither rare, nor an exception, nor cherry picking from Rogers
experience, and is well supported by the many other Europeans who post
in this forum describing the government run infrastructure supporting
bike lane use, _successfully_.

>
There are European successes, particularly in flat northern cities with
mild climate and high density, leading to very short average trips. As I
recall, the typical Amsterdam bike ride stretches about three miles and
takes something like 20 minutes. The typical American commute is around
20 miles one way and averages about half an hour by car.
>
There are also European failures. There are the English "new towns" like
Stevenage designed specifically to make cycling super convenient, but
where cars still dominate. And there's a fairly vocal British contingent
who say "Why can't we be like Amsterdam???" (Britain overall has just a
2% bike mode share.)
>

That is quite a good cherry picking example “new towns” are post 2nd world
war and very car centric, the cycleways are largely rambling ie far from
direct, but the main aim was to be car centric.

Hmm. ISTM that any example of bikeway failure is now being called "cherry picking"!
Yes, those towns were post-WW2 designs. The design was intended to match or exceed what was being done in Netherlands, with the expectation that the ridership would match or exceed Netherlands. IOW, they designed according to contemporary "state of the art." But since it was still easier for folks to drive cars, they drove cars.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/sep/19/britains-1960s-cycling-revolution-flopped-stevenage
Now: How do we decide what is and is not "cherry picking"?
For example, can we stop talking about the London Embankment? Can we stop touting a city where Apple, Inc. resides and contributes heavily to facilities? Can we stop pretending the entire world is just like Amsterdam except for bike lanes?
Perhaps we should lay out a definition of a Typical City, and see what differences in transportation mode share bike infrastructure has made in only cities that meet that definition.
--
- Frank Krygowski