Biking in Boston

[Mark02474]

Funny how others continue to disagree with you.

"In 2011, eight states created new transparency websites: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, and West Virginia.
Seven states garnered “A” grades. These “leading” states – Texas, Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, West Virginia, and Arizona – provide information that is highly searchable, and include detailed data about government contracts, tax subsidies and grants to businesses."

Source: http://www.uspirg.org/news/usp/report-card-ranks-50-states-transparency-spending

I got my information from NPR radio the other day concerning how Gov. Patrick doesn't want the public to know when Legislators and state employees come and go from the State House parking garage. USPIRG's rating is confined to spending.

Can you provide a link to the contracts between Boston, Brookline, and Cambridge with Alta Bike Share? or the Boston trip data? That I'd like to see, along with how many UNIQUE bike share users per day.

The facts are that out of almost 600 bikes available, peak weekday usage is about 11% in nice weather, up to about 19% on nice weekends. Much like off-peak MBTA usage, utilization is close to 0%, as would be expected.

 

[Mark02474]

Piece in NYTtoday. "In Copenhagen, 1/3 of all trips are made by bike." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/w...to-work-on-a-superhighway.html?pagewanted=all

Two interesting things caught my eye: "The cycle superhighway, which opened in April, is the first of 26 routes scheduled to be built to encourage more people to commute to and from Copenhagen by bicycle. More bike path than the Interstate its name suggests, it is the brainchild of city planners who were looking for ways to increase bicycle use in a place where half of the residents already bike to work or to school every day."

This makes great sense. When 50% bike, provide the infrastructure demanded. When 98% drive or ride on public transit buses over roads, meet roadway demands.

"The Capital Region of Denmark, a political body responsible for public hospitals as well as regional development, has provided $1.6 million for the superhighway project." The first completed piece was 11mi., and 11 communities are working together for all the bike highways planned. Its not disclosed what the total funding is, or how far that $1.6M goes in Denmark.

The Alewife GreenWay Restoration project bike path is perhaps 2 miles long, 2 (3?) years in construction, and costing about $4M in fed stimulus money to produce 1 and 1/20th jobs. The budget and schedule were a little less but problems discovered forced some redesign along the way.

If we could build bike paths for so little money as Denmark, even 5% bike ridership here starts to justify bike paths. Its way cheaper than providing public transit, which could then be cut back.

 

[choo]

That Herald thing about parking is the peak of sensational journalism. I'm actually glad the Gov. said no. Despite my inherent cynicism, I'd like to think legislators have meetings and events to take care of that puts them on a schedule different than the 9-5. I'd much rather them report on the nature and impacts of what these leaders actually file and vote on and have them explain that, and not why the left the garage at 2:15 one day.

Anyway- they estimate that there are 3 spaces per every car in the US. Well over 95% of the time people are not driving them. They are just sitting there, like a plane on the runaway, an extra seat on the T, and the bike at the hubway station. It's really right to look at this with a singular focus and not in the larger context.

 

[choo]

This makes great sense. When 50% bike, provide the infrastructure demanded. When 98% drive or ride on public transit buses over roads, meet roadway demands.

You keep making this argument and its infuriating. This argument is like saying in the 1830s that they shouldn't build railroads because no one used them. Or in that highways shouldn't have been built because no one drove from Boston to Chicago. Or airports shouldn't have been expanded because no one flew from Boston to London.

At a basic level you need to build the infrastructure to facilitate the growth and unleash the pent up demand. So using figures when there is no infrastructure is misleading. The fact that the construction of bike infrastructure has resulted in strong growth indicates that there is a lot of pent up demand that will benefit the use of more infrastructure.

 

[metasyntactic]

If we could build bike paths for so little money as Denmark, even 5% bike ridership here starts to justify bike paths. Its way cheaper than providing public transit, which could then be cut back.

That's a ridiculous conclusion. You're completely ignoring the network effect that having both good bicycle infrastructure and good transit can have. Cycling can be the "last-mile", especially with bike sharing or with better bike storage at transit stations. It's not "walking vs. bicycling vs. transit, pick only one".

 

[Mark02474]

This argument is like saying in the 1830s that they shouldn't build railroads because no one used them. Or in that highways shouldn't have been built because no one drove from Boston to Chicago. Or airports shouldn't have been expanded because no one flew from Boston to London.

At a basic level you need to build the infrastructure to facilitate the growth and unleash the pent up demand. So using figures when there is no infrastructure is misleading. The fact that the construction of bike infrastructure has resulted in strong growth indicates that there is a lot of pent up demand that will benefit the use of more infrastructure.

Your's is a familiar argument too. I recall the weeks and months preceding the announcement of a new transportation mode that would be revolutionary, changing transportation forever - the SegWay. The same hype accompanies bicycling today with similar lackluster gains in the US. Its still a niche. With the retirement and disgrace of Lance Armstrong and aging demographics in the US, this boom too shall end.

Who is to say that we should not instead be building more skateboarding facilities instead? Or inline-skating? Both beat walking and are far cheaper and more portable devices than bicycles. Bicycles are more efficient, but why not recumbent bikes, which are yet more efficient? It is simply unrealistic to think bicycles will be adopted much more in the US. Mopeds and scooters are a more capable option than bicycling, yet they too have largely failed to catch on in the US since the late 1970's.

With most Americans paying an extra $600 or more for an automatic transmission in their car so they don't have the effort of shifting gears while driving, its unrealistic to think they will want to add the work of pedaling to get somewhere.

There was huge demand for trains, such demand that trains were privately funded and very profitable until a better option won - motor vehicles. Much public corruption even resulted from trains because towns fought over who would get service. Its a tiny number of bike fanatics clamoring for more to souls to convert to their religion of bicycling, not an overwhelming number who wanted rail service over horse and wagon to move people and goods over land.

In the late 1800's bicycles were so popular because they were so inexpensive compared to cars priced like houses or horses, or indirect streetcar and rail routes. Bicycles were great for many trips when the only other option for most was a long walk. So many more businesses in that day delivered to homes because most people lacked personal transport and the ability to transport even 20lbs of goods home. Times and technology has changed. The Chinese appreciate that and are abandoning bikes as fast as they can. They are happy to take our money and jobs in exchange for bicycles and infrastructure loss. Only Charlie Sheen and cyclists would call that Winning!

 

[choo]

your comparison of bikes to segways is insane. But if people did use them or rollerblade to work (both of which I have actually seen in bike lanes) in large and growing numbers wouldn't it make sense for them.

The idea that private companies built the railroads is equally misguided (but probably fits nicely in your way you THINK the world works). Railroads were hugely subsidized. They were given massive amounts of land by the government that they still profit from today. They went bankrupt and got bailed out time and again. Then cities built giant stations to encourage ridership.

 

[Mark02474]

Cycling can be the "last-mile", especially with bike sharing or with better bike storage at transit stations. It's not "walking vs. bicycling vs. transit, pick only one".

People in public transit estimate they lose riders when they need to walk more than 0.25 mile. So, with bicycles, public transit stops could be reduced to 0.5 or 0.75 mile distances. This saves money which then could fund other transportation like cycling to maximize mobility per dollar.

 

[HenryAlan]

your comparison of bikes to segways is insane.

I'm a fan of the definition that says this word implies doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Don't feed the troll.

 

[choo]

I'm a fan of the definition that says this word implies doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Don't feed the troll.

HAHA- i recognize the irony of me using the word in this conversation. I gotta work on my own restraint.

 

[Mark02474]

The idea that private companies built the railroads is equally misguided (but probably fits nicely in your way you THINK the world works). Railroads were hugely subsidized. They were given massive amounts of land by the government that they still profit from today. They went bankrupt and got bailed out time and again. Then cities built giant stations to encourage ridership.

You neglect to see how revolutionary trains were in the latter half of the 1800s. Train trips were far: faster, more comfortable, and often cheaper than every other alternative - horse and wagon, ship, bicycle, walking. Cities without water transportation hardly existed prior to train transit. Inland cities had to be near rivers, lakes and canals to be in the transportation network. Today, trains don't have such a huge advantage over alternatives like planes, trucks, and automobiles, hence require subsidies. Cities like Buffalo, NY suffered greatly after boom years with the loss of inland waterway traffic to rail, truck, and plane. Nations and empires collapse. Bicycles too shall pass.

As for government grants of land, that's an old tradition also supporting aristocracies and Universities, like MIT for example - on top of tax breaks.

 

[underground]

Today, trains don't have such a huge advantage over alternatives like planes, trucks, and automobiles, hence require subsidies.

Must be opposite day.

 

[Mark02474]

Must be opposite day.

I meant that the advantage of trains disappeared with the invention and development of new means of travel that were yet faster (planes) and/or more flexible and direct (trucks, cars).

A big advantage for trains is not making them yield of other travel modes. Motor vehicles and pedestrians stop for them always. More and more, motor vehicles are becoming less efficient as they are increasingly made to yield for slower modes that lose no energy/money if they had to do the brief yielding. Little should always be yielding to big and less nimble, just as on water. Idiots would think otherwise and counter to centuries of experience.

The Green Line pays a huge penalty for this, being delayed as much as motor vehicles at cross streets. The east side and GLX avoids this by using rail ROW and bridges instead of needing roadway crossings. This is why elevated rail lines are better in cities if money and/or conflicts don't allow underground.

 

[ant8904]

Mark - You still never responded to my post about utility when I argued about the usefulness of a person commute from a 15 minute walk to a 5 minute bike ride. Nor the other point of a city putting money to repair roads.

"Segways"

Comparing Segways to bikes is absurd. Your claim of the hyped never occurred. All the hype around it was when it was still called "it" and the media kept talking like how the man making it is a genius inventor and everything and how it will be bigger than the internet. Akin to Bill Gates's vision for a computer in every home, he had a vision of a segway for every person. But he proved that no all visions are created equal.

Thus claiming that bikes is just a fad where it is already used enough that you'll see a number of bikers on any trip around Boston versus Segway where you can go for years without seeing one unless you hang around Charlestown is absurd.

"Automatic Transmission"

Can you stop using that point? Automatic transmission is not proof that Americans are so lazy that we will not rides bikes if the options exist. Bikes cannot be compared in the same light because bikes are not viewed with the same fear versus learning manual, most people (or enough to fill a city) are have experience bikes since very little unlike manual, and bikes are not viewed as "work" unlike manual. Also, there's the fact a large reluctance of driving manual is not laziness but because everyone buys automatic making it so normal that it not seen as a luxury. So that make it much less plausible to compare bikes to manual.

"Subsidies"

Did you know that airplane, automobiles, and trucks all receive subsidies? Your point "hence require subsidies" as that trains are obsoleted is not a valid point unless you can show the subsidies to trains are any greater than roads or airports.

edit:

"Little should always be yielding to big and less nimble"

That requires a lot of extra clauses to this claim. Because this can easily mean you are saying that things like setting up traffic lights to give more priority to pedestrians who are more nimble and tiny goes against your above statement. And even if you only restrict to bikes, you still have to ask to what situation. Because are you saying even a bike on the bike lane thus making cars slower slight means bikes should be removed off the street?

Edit edit:

Your point about the Chinese taking bikes over cars in droves is driven in a heavy part by desire to status and not utility. There's a place for bikes as well as cars. The previous 80% bike utilization over cars was because they couldn't afford cars, but now they can afford does mean all purchase is because cars have obsoleted bikes. There's a status element driving China to cars too. And bikes do have advantages over cars in certain situations and it not at a 2% niche level. Look at Denmark and you better not dismiss it by saying Americans are too lazy.

 

[underground]

More and more, motor vehicles are becoming less efficient as they are increasingly made to yield for slower modes that lose no energy/money if they had to do the brief yielding.

Please cite the study showing that motor vehicles are becoming less efficient as they are increasingly made to yield for slower modes. Also, please cite the study showing that, if this fantasy world exists, it's actually presenting a real measurable problem.

 

[Mark02474]

Please cite the study showing that motor vehicles are becoming less efficient as they are increasingly made to yield for slower modes. Also, please cite the study showing that, if this fantasy world exists, it's actually presenting a real measurable problem.

I suggest you study physics. Energy to stop or start a pedestrian or bicyclist is far less than for a 400lb rider on moped, 600lb rider on motorcycle, 2,500lb driver in car, or 30,000 bus with some passengers. Pedestrians and cyclists won't be producing measurable green house gas by observing red lights, stop signs, and don't walk signs while other people have their turn.

Check EPA and car manufacturers web sites. Compare the hundreds of studies of City and highway MPG. Except for hybrids which can recapture energy lost to constant slowing, stopping, and resuming speed, highway figures are higher despite much greater air resistance at those speeds. Engine improvements have continued to reduce the penalties.

Some years ago EPA measurement methodology was revised to reflect lower real world city MPG than previously reported - probably reflecting the worsening city travel conditions.

I've read, but don't recall where, pollution from trains is 100 times greater pulling out from the platform as when moving down the track at operating speed. More physics at work.

 

[underground]

So you're answer is there's no study showing that motor vehicles are becoming less efficient as they are increasingly made to yield to slower modes and that it's presenting a real measurable problem.

 

[Mark02474]

Mark - You still never responded to my post about utility when I argued about the usefulness of a person commute from a 15 minute walk to a 5 minute bike ride. Nor the other point of a city putting money to repair roads.
...
"Automatic Transmission"

Can you stop using that point? Automatic transmission is not proof that Americans are so lazy that we will not rides bikes if the options exist. Bikes cannot be compared in the same light because bikes are not viewed with the same fear versus learning manual, most people (or enough to fill a city) are have experience bikes since very little unlike manual, and bikes are not viewed as "work" unlike manual. Also, there's the fact a large reluctance of driving manual is not laziness but because everyone buys automatic making it so normal that it not seen as a luxury. So that make it much less plausible to compare bikes to manual. ...

Can you remind me with the post number for your question? I agree that inline skates, skateboards, and bicycles can shorten pedestrian trips, with the first two allowed to be brought into buildings and MBTA vehicles at any time.

Automatic Transmission

"...bikes are not viewed as "work" unlike manual." Really? Empirical behavioral evidence suggests otherwise. Got any poll results or studies?

You have not adequately explained why Americans are more fearful or challenged to learn manual transmission than any other country in the world. I know automatics were heavily advertised in the US from 1950's-1970's. I don't know about automatic advertising in the rest of the world, or those barriers to acceptance.

Manual transmissions address numerous problems:
1. Excessively low barrier to entry and compentency to drive.
2. Old people crashing into buildings while mistaking gas for brake while parking.
3. Uncontrolled acceleration - depress clutch and brake. Electronics limit RPMs preventing engine damage.
4. Children simply moving the gear shift to set idling vehicles into motion.
5. Energy loss in automatic transmissions.
6. People rushing from light to light instead of timing their approach to reduce shifting efforts and clutch wear. Manual drivers look beyond their hood to plan slowing and stopping. Its similar for cyclists wanting to conserve energy, since pedaling is work!

 

[Mark02474]

So you're answer is there's no study showing that motor vehicles are becoming less efficient as they are increasingly made to yield to slower modes and that it's presenting a real measurable problem.

There are two problems:
1. Who wants to fund a study? What industry profits from higher fuel efficiency? Who will lobby to get government to do the studies? Who will self-fund? The same green advocates who might rather discourage auto use, so they view extra hydrocarbon use as a cost for their cause. Government has already been bought by "complete streets" lobbies and interests. Jimmy Carter instituted Right on Red to reduce fuel waste based on studies. Safety advocates then began attacking it since.

2. Hard to isolate vehicle changes from road changes. I tried doing this for MBTA bus MPG. Diesel bus mileage (27 million/year) and fuel consumption are recorded in the National Transit Database. MPG took a 20% dive around 2005. Previous engines might have been 9-11 Liters in displacement, while newer ones are likely 14L to make pulling out from stops easier in more congested roads. Increased pollution controls or lower energy density fuel could also contribute, but I've never gotten a good explanation from the MBTA.

 

[underground]

Who wants to fund a study? What industry profits from higher fuel efficiency? Who will lobby to get government to do the studies? Who will self-fund? The same green advocates who might rather discourage auto use, so they view extra hydrocarbon use as a cost for their cause. Government has already been bought by "complete streets" lobbies and interests.

So, still no study and now you're claiming there's no study because of a conspiracy perpetrated by shadowy "Green Advocates." Please cite the research showing that the shadowy green advocates exist and that they're blocking the study showing that motor vehicles are becoming less efficient as they are increasingly made to yield to slower modes and that it's presenting a real measurable problem.