Bicyclists Overreact to Dick Mell Thinking Aloud

Bicycles should have licenses and cyclists should be required to purchase insurance and be licensed just like drivers are. I ride and drive, and there's lots of bad behavior from both sides. But, if cyclists want respect, they have to give up the notion that bikes are a toy that you can drive on the sidewalk, through red lights and down one-way streets the wrong way and take responsibility for cycling, just like drivers do.

Here's a thing from Portland Bureau of Transportation that shows that they have increased ridership  322% since 1991 where it's easiest to measure, on the increasingly bike friendly bridges that separate the downtown area from much of the city.

http://www.portlandonline.com/...

Can't we all just ride our bicycles and STFU?

NO!

smile

WTF are you talking about??  Look at the damn link YOU POSTED!

http://vimeo.com/10559007

Blue:

Bike lanes work, PSU professor says

Researcher straps GPS devices on bikes to study riding patterns

http://www.portlandtribune.com...

Now that's closer to what I need to see to buy the argument.

I like the assumption that the young man market is completely tapped out.

I also like the fact that with Occupy not making news this weekend, Chuck could generate 40 comments out of thin air, with nothing new having happened on this topic. Yay Chuck!

Ha, our posts got deleted.  Such thin skin.  It was tongue in cheek guys..

I am a confuse.

You're welcome, Chicagoist.

I almost made a comment about this subject being comment-bait when news is slow.

Cycling
Hipsters
Any topic with a race aspect.

Give me a minute...

Man, nobody cares how you personally felt riding in them. Sorry, that's not quantifiable data.  Did the infrastructure implemented in the cities cited lead to greater ridership? Less speeding? Less crashes? Less vehicle miles traveled? Less external costs passed onto the public?  Yes. Yes. Yes. YES.

And where, specifially, is this quantifiable data?

The bike counts are administered by the city and aren't published right away: 2009 was just released this spring: http://www.cityofchicago.org/c...

So the Kinzie data was obviously picked early to show the effect of the street improvement.  But the 2011count is comparable to 2009 for that area in terms of weather and location, and the modeshare difference between the two speaks volumes.  For the other cities, CDOT likely asked for the numbers and were provided with them.  

I guess if you want to believe they're just making them up to force some agenda down our throats that's your right.  But I'm more inclined to believe that Chicago is implementing them because the bikelanes implemented previously have led to more riders and that is better for everyone that just spending more money on the status quo and hoping gas prices go up.

Now you're just being obtuse.  You freakin' cited it, don't get pissed because it proved my point.  Quantifiable => quantify => quantity...i.e. numbers.  The numbers in the citation you linked?  That's "quantifiable data."

What is obtuse about asking you to cite your claims? What supports your statement that restricted bike lanes in these cities lead to greater ridership? Less speeding? Fewer crashes? Fewer vehicle miles traveled? You can't just say it and expect me to buy it.

The numbers in that document cite no study. There's nothing to say where they come from.

The citation YOU POSTED has 5 sources and lists crash reduction, injury reduction, ridership increases, speeding reduction, less bikes on sidewalks.  What else do you NEED?

I think ultimately, you're missing what I'm saying. I agree with the notion that creating a more bicycle-centric culture makes bicycling safer. I agree that it does all these things you say it does. Where we diverge--and what these sources don't support, from what I've seen--is the notion that restricted bike lanes create that culture, especially when they're being installed in a vacuum. These sources, when they talk about restricted bike lanes, they talk about them as part of larger initiatives ... greater traffic enforcement, for instance, or more greenspace, or more isolated bike paths, or what have you. You can't argue that the larger initiative is happening here. We're simply installing bike lanes and hoping that does the trick.

Again, I want to see a detailed study on the lanes themselves. If you know where that is, tell me.

You posted one.  So did Navin. I feel like I'm leading a horse, shouting, "drink, dammit, DRINK!"  Start by looking into the 5 footnotes included in your own link.  Infrastructure isn't the whole answer, but it's part of one. And considering this is what Mell was reacting to, it's a valid part of the discussion here.

And I'm saying that isn't in the five footnotes, at least not that I saw. There is nothing in those five footnotes that specifically addresses restricted bike lanes. And Navin's link doesn't differentiate between restricted lanes and shared lanes.

Did I miss it? Where is it?

I need it spelled out for me. I'm dumb that way. I need to see the actual numbers of the actual study related specifically to restricted bike lanes, and I need it not to suffer from the type of statistical gameplay exemplified by, say, citing an increase in bike traffic from May to June as evidence. I don't have time to review all these sources, but from what I've seen scanning through the first few, I haven't seen it. If you know someplace that will quickly get me there, I'd love to see it.

I support the idea of a license for bikes. Either that or start ticketing them for traffic violations. Help to pay for all they demand. You cost the city money, you pay the city money. They seem to want all the benefits of being a "vehicle" but none of the costs/responsibilities. Also, I do think there should be safer ways provided for them to ride. So, they deserve a lane and to be taxed. After all, the critical mass crowd loves them some taxes..... on others at least.

I could support taxation based on impact to infrastructure. Most bikes weigh, at most, around 30 pounds. Some weigh closer to five. Add a rider, and you get a total between 200 and 300 pounds. The lightest cars, meanwhile, weigh around 4000 pounds.

How much impact on infrastructure do you think a 300 pound vehicle has compared to a 4000 pound vehicle? It's a silly argument.

And here's the link you asked for: http://bit.ly/uzr4n8  That's a lotta bikes - I don't care how good the weather is. An overall 50% modeshare.  Taking up a LOT less space I might add.

Okay, you have traffic counts for July, 2011. How does this compare to July, 2010? Do you have that?

(Wider) LOL. Uh, no...he didn't cite anything, you did.  

I'd like to know what cities you've ridden in that have gotten significant gains in ridership without new infrastructure.

In this context, it's been shown that cities need 12 cyclists per 1 motorist to break even on road funding.

Are you implying that cyclists don't already contribute for road infrastructure?

Certainly not in the way a motorist is required to. I do understand that many of us pay taxes when we earn money or spend money or win it or have it given to us etc.

"In the ways that motorists do"?  

The amount of money brought in by user fees and gas taxes doesn't begin to cover the amount of cash needed to maintain local roads.  In fact, it's been quantified that drivers pay only .7 cents per mile driven while causing over 5 cents of wear and tear to roads per mile driven.  Include other public impacts such as land value, air pollution, and crashes, and that number goes up to over 30 cents per mile driven.  Motorists "take" far more than they "give."  

To call a cyclist a freeloader in such a context is frankly obscene. 

" The full 100 miles of bike paths could come in at around $28 million". Also your figure does not include the 173 zillion dollars generated by moving violations etc. If you guys can handle being held to the same level as the motorists, I'll be happy.

A) I can only speak for myself but I always respect the right of way - while I'm not going to sit at red light in an empty street, nor come to a complete stop and put my foot down at a stop sign when no one else is there.  I wish everyone else did the same but adding more fees isn't going to change that - it's just going to make people ride less and cost YOU more money in the end.
B) $28 million is the cost of about 4 days work of resurfacing 8 miles of the Edens.  So 60% of it's drivers can keep billing their insurance provider for medication related to their chronic obesity. And since 2/3rds of them are on Medicare/Medicaid - that's money from YOUR taxes.

"So 60% of it's drivers can keep billing their insurance provider for medication related to their chronic obesity."

Why do you guys always overreach? The Edens needs to be resurfaced mostly because of truck traffic. You know, bringing stuff to stores, transmitting the results of people's labor, etc. etc. There is no reason not to resurface the Edens, AND encourage people to bike.

Jesus Christ, who's overreaching? If more people biked and took transit, the Edens obviously wouldn't need to be resurfaced so often - no one's arguing the necessity of the work or the reality of it.  The point was that $28 million for 100 mile transportation network is BARGAIN. 

D, is fine. I save "Jesus Christ" for my career in musical theater.

Superstar!

Wrong.  It was reactionary pushback for the status quo and Mell is willfully blind to the fact that Klein's proposals will do much to create safer cycling and lawful riding in Chicago.  Separated bike infratructure and more cyclists in the streets will give riders a sense of place, instead of being outlaws on streets that are only designed for cars.  Licensing bikes has never worked and only serves to keep more bicyclists from leaving the car at home.

I have a sense of place when I ride. It's on the street.

Going for more real estate here.  Yes, a lot less people will ride in winter.  Granted.  That's what transit is for.  Or could be for if it were properly funded.  

I digress...but in the 9 months out of the year when there's not ice on the street a lot more people will ride, and over the 12 month average it's going to be a net increase, and one that will pay a dividend in mitigating public health costs.  Same dynamic with capital costs for expanding transit. In the long run it saves us money. But, as I said, the US is the frog in the pot of boiling water.

"We don't want to stop subsidizing private auto ownership because we're lazy and selfish" is not a cultural difference.

I actually think that saying "we're lazy and selfish and they're not" is the definition of cultural difference.

And again, I question the increase. What have we really seen? Do you have anything to say there really was an increase because of Kinzie?

(Personally, I think the Kinzie example is a small enough trial over what so far is a short enough period that it can't be used to support either side.)

As do I, good for you.  But the benchmark of these new separated bike lanes is "anyone - from 8 to 80" should feel safe enough to bike commute.   The current modeshare for bikes in Chicago is about 2 percent. In urban cores of equal density in Europe it's as high as 60%.  Myriad tactics, including separate infrastructure and driving disincentives, make it so.  As a result - traffic injuries are much lower and the population spends about half as much on healthcare, because of fewer chronically obese and diabetic people.  

The low hanging fruit's been picked - if it's to go any higher, simply saying "it's safe, I promise!" is no longer enough.

You make the common error of equating Europe with Chicago and suggesting that what's possible in Europe is possible in Chicago. There are many reasons I don't think this translates. The most important is climate.

Advocates of these things usually cite Amsterdam as one example of success. Amsterdam's proximity to the North Sea and the warm waters carried north by the Gulf Stream give it a relatively mild winter. The average high in January is 41, the average low is 34. This compares to a high in Chicago of 31 and a low of 16. Amsterdam's average February high is 43, its low 38, compared to a high of 36 in Chicago and a low of 21. It rarely snows in Amsterdam. We know what it does here. Most European cities these studies cite have similar mild winters. You have to go considerable distances into the mid-continent to find otherwise, and you won't find bike cultures in these cities.

There are other differences, mostly having to do with cultural attitude. Europe has never been as car-crazy as us; the price of gas in Europe is much higher; Europe has more compact cities. What I think's going to happen is that the restricted lanes might enjoy some increased bike traffic until it gets cold, and then all the summer bikers will go back inside. My preferred route to avoid the Milwaukee traffic, meanwhile, will be covered in a three-month layer of ice, unless Steve Vance decides to maintain it himself. All for the sake of people who won't ride in winter anyway.

If I turn out to be wrong, I'll change my tune. We'll see. 

You can cite other American cities that have made cycling (and walking) much more friendly to citizens.  As a fellow cyclist, I find your stubborn, defeatist attitude about this kind of perplexing.

Yeah ... and they've done this largely without protected bike lanes. I've ridden in some of these cities, in fact. More often than not, I still find riding in Chicago safer.

As a cyclist, I find your willingness to accept anything new and fancy without looking at potential downsides comepletely typical.

In other cities cyclists and pedestrians are safer based on strict enforcement of traffic laws alone.  Portland has regular lanes and protected ones, but most importantly they are strict about ticketing drivers for not respecting pedestrians and cyclists.  The city is also more engaged in trying to improve cycling numbers.

Ah ... so we agree that bike lanes aren't the most important factor. You say it has more to do with traffic enforcement. I could agree with that.

No, they're both important.

"Yeah ... and they've done this largely without protected bike lanes. I've ridden in some of these cities, in fact."

Such as?

This document (http://www.chicagobikes.org/pd... ... html linking rarely works for me here) lists only six cities other than us with protected bike lanes. One of these is Boulder. I go to Boulder often and have experienced how these things work there. I feel much more nervous riding there that here. None of the others have turned into the European utopia you describe.

Minneapolis has managed to create a healthy bicycle culture without protected bike lanes, at least until recent implementation. They have a lot of isolated bike paths, but that's a different thing. I don't argue against those.

To be consistent, we should look at the cities Navin was talking about. Ask him.

http://vimeo.com/10559007

LOL. Uh, no...he didn't cite anything, you did.  

I'd like to know what cities you've ridden in that have gotten significant gains in ridership without infrastructure.

"You have to go considerable distances into the mid-continent to find otherwise, and you won't find bike cultures in these cities."

Indeed, you'll find transit and walking cultures.  It's ultimately the same argument.  They all provide the same disincentive for cars.  German auto insurance requires a million Euro in liability.  A new car in Denmark is over 50% tax.  

They understand the public impacts of driving.  That's the point of this whole argument: Ald. Mell clearly does not.

Yes, they understand the public impacts of driving, but that has little to do with a restricted bike lane on Elston. They have all kinds of cultural disincentives that we don't and won't for a very long time ... maybe not until gas hits $10 a gallon. That's my point.

Also, the city bought a special plow that will fit in the separated lanes.  I don't know whether Steve will be driving it...

Their gas is expensive because they have percentage taxes rather than flat fees.  A litre of gas is over 50% tax in most of Europe.  They totally understand the externalities of private car ownership.  We don't, as a society - the US is the proverbial frog in the pot of hot water.  We're boiling to death in the externalies of our car-culture yet we continue to subsidize it and react punitively to alternatives.   

Bike traffic on Milwaukee went up 60% after the completion of the Kinzie Street bike lane.  That's cost mitigation, pure and simple.  Elston will do the same.  It's about time we spent money on something else than more public subsidies for costly private driving. 

You keep talking about all these cultural differences between Europe and Chicago as if I don't know these exist. They do. I accept that as part of my premise. It is, in fact, one of the points I make when I say that bike lanes won't work here the way they do there.

A few points about Kinzie Street. 1.) Do you have a link to your figures on Milwaukee? 2.) The Kinzie Street bike lane opened in June. Weather turns nice in June, and bike traffic always increases. How do these figures compare with the normal spring increase? 3.) What is traffic now vs., say, last November?
4.) You say traffic increased on Milwaukee. There is no protected bike lane on Milwaukee. Is your argument that traffic increased on a long street with no bike lane so that people could take a three-block section of bike lane? It seems to me you can't argue an increase in traffic on a non-protected street where nothing changed owes to a small protected street.

One more thing ... this is getting thin. If you wish to continue the discussion, I propose you reply to one of my wider comments above.

Chicago aldermen aren't capable of thinking, let alone thinking out loud.
This was a fishing expedition to see whether licensing bikes & riders would fly.
Obviously, it won't!
It would bring in money & require more city employees, all of whom give campaign contributions to our 50 corrupt aldermen.