On 4/4/2024 11:25 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The issue here is in American cities. The newer cities in the
>> Midwest/west could certainly implement a decent infrastructure, but most
>> of the cities on the east coast are heavily congested with narrow roads
>> designed and built (if they could even be considered as 'designed') well
>> before the advent of cars.
>>
> Don’t doubt that there are narrower American roads which are more in line
> with European roads. But I’d argue that on a whole seems to have more space
> in general, and there are choices in terms of how much space is used for
> who, for example the trend is to have less wide open junctions so
> pedestrians have less distance to cross, and take less time, and motorists
> have to slow down.
>
> Ie stuff can be done if there is the political will to do so it’s a matter
> of choices.

Regarding political will and choices: Of course those are important.
Local officials are up for election every few years and have to brag
about what they've done and what they promise to do. Competitors spend
time ragging on decisions they disagree with, and "No new taxes" of
"Less government spending" is a constant theme.

Given that reality, saying "We're going to build really great facilities
for people who want to bike, and maybe slow drivers down a bit to make
it safer for bike riders" won't help getting elected in most American
cities. It's considered a far left fringe idea.

Locally, there's been a mini-surge in bike lanes. The street shown in my
recent photos is actually a state route. The state DOT designed and made
those changes. I doubt the city had any input.

There are some new bike lanes in the city's old downtown and the
university area. Those came as a minor part of a huge state grant
program, construction still in progress, that includes things like a
driverless bus to shuttle people about one mile from downtown to a
hospital complex.

Will this make a difference? Doubtful. The university bike lanes have
been in for a few months. I've yet to see a bike in them. Central
downtown has few residents, and I don't know why someone who had to
drive to get to downtown would not then drive to get to the hospital.

So we'll see. But I predict the same amount of mode change effected by
most other dreamy facilities. That would be a brief bump by folks
curious to try something new, followed by return to status quo after
actual experience.

.....

BTW, downtown Youngstown will soon have its first eBike share company. I
attended the first publicity event, several months ago. It was held
about five blocks from the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, the
one that works to get grants for such things.

The MPO employee who is in charge of bike projects gave a little speech
on how great the eBike rentals will be. He said something like "To get
to this meeting from my office, I'll be able to rent an eBike instead of
driving my car like I'd normally do!"

Instead of walking, he'd drive his car a distance of five blocks, less
than half a mile, despite sidewalks all the way. That's what we're up
against.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:16:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 4/4/2024 11:25 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The issue here is in American cities. The newer cities in the
>>> Midwest/west could certainly implement a decent infrastructure, but most
>>> of the cities on the east coast are heavily congested with narrow roads
>>> designed and built (if they could even be considered as 'designed') well
>>> before the advent of cars.
>>>
>> Don’t doubt that there are narrower American roads which are more in line
>> with European roads. But I’d argue that on a whole seems to have more space
>> in general, and there are choices in terms of how much space is used for
>> who, for example the trend is to have less wide open junctions so
>> pedestrians have less distance to cross, and take less time, and motorists
>> have to slow down.
>>
>> Ie stuff can be done if there is the political will to do so it’s a matter
>> of choices.
>
>Regarding political will and choices: Of course those are important.
>Local officials are up for election every few years and have to brag
>about what they've done and what they promise to do. Competitors spend
>time ragging on decisions they disagree with, and "No new taxes" of
>"Less government spending" is a constant theme.
>
>Given that reality, saying "We're going to build really great facilities
>for people who want to bike, and maybe slow drivers down a bit to make
>it safer for bike riders" won't help getting elected in most American
>cities. It's considered a far left fringe idea.
>
>Locally, there's been a mini-surge in bike lanes. The street shown in my
>recent photos is actually a state route. The state DOT designed and made
>those changes. I doubt the city had any input.
>
>There are some new bike lanes in the city's old downtown and the
>university area. Those came as a minor part of a huge state grant
>program, construction still in progress, that includes things like a
>driverless bus to shuttle people about one mile from downtown to a
>hospital complex.
>
>Will this make a difference? Doubtful. The university bike lanes have
>been in for a few months. I've yet to see a bike in them. Central
>downtown has few residents, and I don't know why someone who had to
>drive to get to downtown would not then drive to get to the hospital.
>
>So we'll see. But I predict the same amount of mode change effected by
>most other dreamy facilities. That would be a brief bump by folks
>curious to try something new, followed by return to status quo after
>actual experience.
>
>....
>
>BTW, downtown Youngstown will soon have its first eBike share company. I
>attended the first publicity event, several months ago. It was held
>about five blocks from the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, the
>one that works to get grants for such things.
>
>The MPO employee who is in charge of bike projects gave a little speech
>on how great the eBike rentals will be. He said something like "To get
>to this meeting from my office, I'll be able to rent an eBike instead of
>driving my car like I'd normally do!"
>
>Instead of walking, he'd drive his car a distance of five blocks, less
>than half a mile, despite sidewalks all the way. That's what we're up
>against.

It seems to me that bicycling in the USA is more of a recreational
thing than an alternative to an automobile. That may be less true in
urban areas and certainly for going to and from schools and college
classes, but do not see many bicycles parked arounr grocery stores and
shopping centers.

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.)

> We get it. You hate cycling infrastructure. You think it's a waste of
> time and money, and consider it to be inherently unsafe and unworkable.

That's not far off. Most of it is not hugely dangerous, primarily
because bicycling is immensely safe. But most bike lanes don't
measurably increase safety, and they actually add complication and
danger to intersections. Some have greatly increased crash counts.

And if their objective is to get lots more people riding instead of
driving, yes, they are failures.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

>> We get it. You hate cycling infrastructure. You think it's a waste of
>> time and money, and consider it to be inherently unsafe and unworkable.
>
> That's not far off. Most of it is not hugely dangerous, primarily
> because bicycling is immensely safe. But most bike lanes don't
> measurably increase safety, and they actually add complication and
> danger to intersections. Some have greatly increased crash counts.
>
> And if their objective is to get lots more people riding instead of
> driving, yes, they are failures.
>
>
>
Roger Merriman

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 11:25 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The issue here is in American cities. The newer cities in the
>>> Midwest/west could certainly implement a decent infrastructure, but most
>>> of the cities on the east coast are heavily congested with narrow roads
>>> designed and built (if they could even be considered as 'designed') well
>>> before the advent of cars.
>>>
>> Don’t doubt that there are narrower American roads which are more in line
>> with European roads. But I’d argue that on a whole seems to have more space
>> in general, and there are choices in terms of how much space is used for
>> who, for example the trend is to have less wide open junctions so
>> pedestrians have less distance to cross, and take less time, and motorists
>> have to slow down.
>>
>> Ie stuff can be done if there is the political will to do so it’s a matter
>> of choices.
>
> Regarding political will and choices: Of course those are important.
> Local officials are up for election every few years and have to brag
> about what they've done and what they promise to do. Competitors spend
> time ragging on decisions they disagree with, and "No new taxes" of
> "Less government spending" is a constant theme.
>
> Given that reality, saying "We're going to build really great facilities
> for people who want to bike, and maybe slow drivers down a bit to make
> it safer for bike riders" won't help getting elected in most American
> cities. It's considered a far left fringe idea.
>
> Locally, there's been a mini-surge in bike lanes. The street shown in my
> recent photos is actually a state route. The state DOT designed and made
> those changes. I doubt the city had any input.

This happens all over, I’m sure certainly london the central ie London
Mayor and Transport for london has authority on trunk roads, the various
london councils are variable some like where I work are very car centric
and hence very low cycling rates, others for various are much more keen and
have much higher rates, ie it’s not uniform across london, though the big
TFL routes into london are slowly spreading ie reaching further out and so
on.
>
> There are some new bike lanes in the city's old downtown and the
> university area. Those came as a minor part of a huge state grant
> program, construction still in progress, that includes things like a
> driverless bus to shuttle people about one mile from downtown to a
> hospital complex.
>
> Will this make a difference? Doubtful. The university bike lanes have
> been in for a few months. I've yet to see a bike in them. Central
> downtown has few residents, and I don't know why someone who had to
> drive to get to downtown would not then drive to get to the hospital.

I’ve attended most hospital appointments ie outpatient by bike as well
easier transport and parking.
>
> So we'll see. But I predict the same amount of mode change effected by
> most other dreamy facilities. That would be a brief bump by folks
> curious to try something new, followed by return to status quo after
> actual experience.
>
> ....
>
> BTW, downtown Youngstown will soon have its first eBike share company. I
> attended the first publicity event, several months ago. It was held
> about five blocks from the local Metropolitan Planning Organization, the
> one that works to get grants for such things.
>
> The MPO employee who is in charge of bike projects gave a little speech
> on how great the eBike rentals will be. He said something like "To get
> to this meeting from my office, I'll be able to rent an eBike instead of
> driving my car like I'd normally do!"
>
> Instead of walking, he'd drive his car a distance of five blocks, less
> than half a mile, despite sidewalks all the way. That's what we're up
> against.
>
London walking has fair mode share but then its scale, ie the distance from
Poland into Youngstown central 6 ish miles is still central london, hence
no one sane drives in!

Roger Merriman

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 14:37:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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

That's most likely true... Bikes work better for recreation.

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

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 16:34:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.

Bike infrastructure has greatly increased recreational bicycling and
that's going to keep getting better. People who ride bicycles instead
of cars are few and far between here in Florida.

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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
>
I was somewhat harsh on Stevenage in that it did and to some extent still
does have a direct cycleways but it absolutely was built with high capacity
ie big wide urban roads which encourage car use. On the main road london to
Scotland that it now is fairly obvious that it would become so car centric
or rather not a mini Amsterdam

> 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.
>
London is many times larger than Amsterdam or Youngstown, and as such has
different infrastructure, there is reason that it was london where the
first first underground trains where opened, or why no one would choose to
drive into central unless they had a really good reason, and why the cycle
network has largely at least the 21st century stuff has been on the direct
routes, be that the embankment to Chiswick high road. Ie folks need direct
routes as they are cycling a fair distance.

Roger Merriman

On 4/4/2024 7:52 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 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
>>
> I was somewhat harsh on Stevenage in that it did and to some extent still
> does have a direct cycleways but it absolutely was built with high capacity
> ie big wide urban roads which encourage car use. On the main road london to
> Scotland that it now is fairly obvious that it would become so car centric
> or rather not a mini Amsterdam

"... now fairly obvious" using 20:20 hindsight. But it proves one of my
points: It's not (usually? ever?) possible to have high bike mode share
unless there are policies or conditions that actively dissuade car use.

>
>> 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.
>>
> London is many times larger than Amsterdam or Youngstown, and as such has
> different infrastructure, there is reason that it was london where the
> first first underground trains where opened, or why no one would choose to
> drive into central unless they had a really good reason, and why the cycle
> network has largely at least the 21st century stuff has been on the direct
> routes, be that the embankment to Chiswick high road. Ie folks need direct
> routes as they are cycling a fair distance.

The question remains: What cities will qualify for the "not cherry
picking" label?

In America, I think I can find well over 50 that have pretty good bike
facility networks, but bike mode shares under 1%.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 7:52 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>> I was somewhat harsh on Stevenage in that it did and to some extent still
>> does have a direct cycleways but it absolutely was built with high capacity
>> ie big wide urban roads which encourage car use. On the main road london to
>> Scotland that it now is fairly obvious that it would become so car centric
>> or rather not a mini Amsterdam
>
> "... now fairly obvious" using 20:20 hindsight. But it proves one of my
> points: It's not (usually? ever?) possible to have high bike mode share
> unless there are policies or conditions that actively dissuade car use.
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> London is many times larger than Amsterdam or Youngstown, and as such has
>> different infrastructure, there is reason that it was london where the
>> first first underground trains where opened, or why no one would choose to
>> drive into central unless they had a really good reason, and why the cycle
>> network has largely at least the 21st century stuff has been on the direct
>> routes, be that the embankment to Chiswick high road. Ie folks need direct
>> routes as they are cycling a fair distance.
>
> The question remains: What cities will qualify for the "not cherry
> picking" label?
>
> In America, I think I can find well over 50 that have pretty good bike
> facility networks, but bike mode shares under 1%.
>

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 4/4/2024 7:52 PM, Roger Merriman wrote:
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>> I was somewhat harsh on Stevenage in that it did and to some extent still
>> does have a direct cycleways but it absolutely was built with high capacity
>> ie big wide urban roads which encourage car use. On the main road london to
>> Scotland that it now is fairly obvious that it would become so car centric
>> or rather not a mini Amsterdam
>
> "... now fairly obvious" using 20:20 hindsight. But it proves one of my
> points: It's not (usually? ever?) possible to have high bike mode share
> unless there are policies or conditions that actively dissuade car use.
>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> London is many times larger than Amsterdam or Youngstown, and as such has
>> different infrastructure, there is reason that it was london where the
>> first first underground trains where opened, or why no one would choose to
>> drive into central unless they had a really good reason, and why the cycle
>> network has largely at least the 21st century stuff has been on the direct
>> routes, be that the embankment to Chiswick high road. Ie folks need direct
>> routes as they are cycling a fair distance.
>
> The question remains: What cities will qualify for the "not cherry
> picking" label?
>
> In America, I think I can find well over 50 that have pretty good bike
> facility networks, but bike mode shares under 1%.
>
That as ever depends on is it an outlier? With London I can look to Paris
and see similar if not more so cycling infrastructure and I believe places
like New York or Bay Area which have broadly similar population ie millions
in double digits.

Smaller more rural places are always going to be less so, note that in the
Uk at least Youngstown and similar would be a town even with its past
history, admittedly the definition between city and town is vague at best!

Roger Merriman