I claim data not supporting policy is mostly not produced, analyzed, and published. Hiding data is less common, say for HubWay vs Capitol bike share, and both don't want to expose how few unique riders per day or week there are "trips" looks so much better, much like claiming growth in bicycling by percent instead of numeric changes, or plotting on a linear scaled chart with numbers of drivers, car poolers, bus riders, and walkers. Cyclists also like to distort numbers by lumping themselves in with pedestrians, because pedestrian numbers are so much greater. The same tricks get so repetitious from one bike blog to the next to greenwashed site to the next.
Here is one slide of Liveable Streets thanking their major backers as an example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/49752072@N04/7460824182/sizes/k/in/photostream/
So basically, you are giving suspicious to corporate capitalism to bikes and bike advocates.
There two things I want to point with this.
Sometimes advocates goals' and the desires of corporations do align. It doesn't happen to much as examples like the finance industry versus everyone else and etc, but it does happen. Obviously groups that advocate for infrastructure for bikes and street construction is going to have the tacit approval of bike makers and construction companies.
However, it seems you are arguing that the existence are rather than an alliance between the two groups, but instead front of bike companies and construction companies trying to fool the public and the government.
Okay, that makes some sense. Except that you are not giving the same treatment towards oil companies and car companies who obviously advocate the 1950's style of construction. You are giving a lot of scrutiny and dismissal of our claim that we believe bike infrastructure should be built but none towards car infrastructure?
Worse, you seem to be assuming groups like Livable Streets Alliance are only pushing profit agenda rather than finding allies who they are motivated by profit.
I support building bike infrastructure where it makes sense in terms of cost and benefit. If there is little benefit, little cost is warranted. The cost can be money, safety, traffic congestion, productivity loss, fuel waste, and pollution increase. If there is surplus pavement without double-parking and commercial/bus traffic, sure, paint for bike lanes doesn't cost very much.
Your measure of what makes sense and our measure seem to be quite different. Because are assigning far more benefits to bikes and less damage cause by congestion. You see to be very dismissal of the benefits of bikes and highly expansive of the costs.
But, perhaps we been going off on the wrong foot. But there been multiple posts back and forth on your arguments of usage, advocates groups, statistics, but we have not discussion too much on the very point of this debate:
What streets/trails of Boston/Cambridge should have bike lanes and those you believe are a waste?
We can start with this map:
http://trailmap.mapc.org/
Do you see areas that you says are says not have bike infrastructure? What areas should be car only and why?
I have a nag you might say that you need more data to determine the areas. Well, I'll say right now two points there.
1. Maybe there only so much data we can try before we just do it. For example, how much study did we done for Route 128?
2. You seem to have read and understand enough to make some educated guesses (or so I think), you should be able to say something rather than just dismissal.
Manual transmission is just another example of how people prioritize comfort and time over a little money or other goals. People try to walk the least amount too, despite safety risks of jaywalking or trying to cross highways. They want to park their car or bike as close as possible to a destination. Downhill skiing is more popular than uphill skiing. Cycling downhill more popular than uphill.
Except you are far too exaggerating the level of discomfort to biking. You are trying to make a case that people are not interested in biking by saying people are not interested in sacrificing comfort. That is true, but that truth only applies to biking if biking is that much more uncomfortable over biking.
I disagree.
I oppose taking away roadway from cars where scarce for exclusive use by the small minority of mostly male, professional, educated, bicycle users. It borders on elitist. Anybody could play squash or sail, but the demographics are also unbalanced.
Okay, you do have a point there. Biking does tend to fall in the demographic of the young, male, professional, college-educated people.... Except t
his is Boston (and Cambridge). Where there are tons of the young, male, professional, college-educated people (and there's quite a number of female bikers too) There's 90,000 falling that age alone that in the college student bracket. And Boston/Cambridge are still able to retain quite a large number after graduation year after year (and we should aim to retain this demographic, and my understanding those falling in such age bracket are very interested in having bike infrastructure).
You display ignorance of motor vehicles.
I have experience with racing bicycles, racing motorcycles, and racing cars. Apart from more jostling applied to the body (and less comfortable racing bike seats), there is great pleasure from each compared to baseline counterparts. There is no comparison between the fun of riding a dead feeling mountain bike from Walmart to a responsive, high strength steel framed road bike with light weight wheels and low rolling resistance tires. Other types of vehicles are much the same between responsive ones and not. BTW, I've not ridden high performance bikes with carbon or boron fiber, aluminum or titanium frames, but hear they miss some magic of great steel frames. I like the feel better on a CrMo steel Ducatti framed motorcycle than bikes with mild steel or aluminum frames.
Shifting on a performance car is a great pleasure missing from shifting on a bicycle. On a truck, shifting is also just work, but adds the option of engine braking. I suggest you learn to shift on a car and experience really driving.
Okay, you got me that I have not driven in the same range of cars as you have as it seems. Perhaps there is some joy in driving stick over automatic. I should make a point to get a feel of driving something on the top end of cars as I had with other types of vehicles (or anything in general).
However, this does not dismantle my point. As the perception remains that most people do not see any joy in driving manual. People does not see peddling and biking in general with the same level of discomfort versus the idea of picking up on driving a manual car. There, my point still stands that you can't compare bikes versus manual in barrier of entry by feeling of discomfort.
Your points are disjoint. Due to congested streets and having to stop for red lights, does make many bicycle trips faster than observing laws on a motorcycle or car. Its unrelated to a learned behavior of engaging the clutch when starting or stopping at parking spots, thus preventing some accidents. That is just a freebie side benefit.
Expand how is my point is disjoint and what does that mean exactly to nullify it? My point is people can seeing and directly experience the benefits of biking much easier than manual driving in the city. This goes back to the larger point that biking is not perceived as work as much a manual.
If you did the default, you would just drive instead of bike! Staying alive on city streets requires far more education and skill than riding on a cul de sac when 8. Its a barrier to entry for many riders like a manual for drivers.
Sadly, we don't all have the health at 22 for our entire lives. Sports injuries prevent me from riding a bike or being comfortable riding a sport motorcycle. Bicycling isn't for everyone, but at 1% or less on a national scale and a few percent in some cities, still has much opportunity for growth. Letting people experience high quality is a real converter: audio systems, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, wine, whatever.
The perception of biking around the city versus getting getting a manual car - the biking as less of a jump. So my point still stands. And you can't take national percentages and applying to local policy. It is 1% nationally, but does that mean Boston is 1% or a few percent meaning we should not build the infrastructure we been praising?
But I guess that goes back to my question of what streets stated above. So lets return to that. As negative you seem to be about biking and giving investment to subsidies for it. What does that apply to Boston and its recent developments? Or future developments?
