[sustran] Re: Cycling in cities

[Eric Bruun]

Why not have both? Dedicated infrastructure in some places creates a larger
number of bicyclists. When there is a larger number, more will also want to
be using the existing roads.

One more comment about the idea that there should be no separate lanes. This
is just not workable if we are trying to get kids in the habit of bicycling.
Parents won't let kids bicycle on large roads, but will let them use
dedicated paths.

Eric

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Zegras" <czegras at MIT.EDU>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Cc: <forester at johnforester.com>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 1:32 PM
Subject: [sustran] Re: Cycling in cities



Hi Ramon, Walter and Others,

This sounds like something that John Forrester has been pushing for years
("Effective Cycling" see for example:
http://www.johnforester.com/BTI/ectraining.htm).

The concept of Effective Cycling (or vehicular cycling) has been quite
polemic in the States - those advocates that believe infrastructure is the
only way to get people cycling safely en masse, v/s those that believe
dedicated/segregated infrastructure only makes the problem worse...

Chris

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:05:58 -0400
>From: mobility <mobility at igc.org>
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Cycling in cities
>
>i think its a good idea, Ramon.  Several friends have told me they would
ride
>their bikes if they could figure out how to cycle in traffic.  Any idea how
to
>develop a curriculum?   you don't agree with dutch cycling design that a.
>basically ends the cycle lanes before they reach the intersection, and b)
puts
>the cyclists in a box at the front of the traffic to allow them to clear
the
>intersection first?  Seems to me to work petty well.  Also working well is
a
>walk-bike sign that turns green before the motor traffic light.
>
>Would love to have more info on the Marakina bike plans.   Dont doubt
>there are
>problems.
>
>best
>walter
>
>Ramon wrote:
>
> > >bottom line is the answers are not simple, are fairly >location
specific,
> > and we're not likely to get any quick >victories in cities that dont
have
> > long arterials with wide >medians that can be used for bike lanes.
> >
> > Only if we count the number (mileage) of bike lanes (or other
> > infrastructure) built. We just got back from our training in Marikina
and I
> > was surprised that city bike planners and engineers did not have a clue
> > about the dangers that their design of bike paths (physically separated
but
> > along roadways except for a few by creeks and the river that are more
> > appropriate for leisure use, not for serious transportation) created for
> > cyclists, pedestrians and even MV drivers. The "pilot" cycle path built
> with
> > GEF funds dumps cyclists perpendicularly into the path of MV traffic at
a
> > busy intersection. The design itself is pedestrian walkway - cycle
path -
> > car parking -- copied from some convoluted European design is my guess.
> > Anyway, the real problem is not the design per se but is inherent in the
> > idea of a roadside cycle path because it is difficult to see how
> > intersections can be made safer without building flyover ramps just to
> > connect the paths (none of the compensating "designs" proposed by
> > Europeans -- set backs, lanes narrowed at intersections in order to
raise
> > driver awareness, etc.) really seem to help. Or we can educate cyclists
how
> > to deal with traffic safely, that is, "drive" their bicycles correctly
in
> > traffic, fix road surfaces, fix gratings, improve enforcement of traffic
> > laws (in Manila, enforce loading and unloading regulations for public
> > transport and getting MV drivers to obey traffic regulations at
> > intersections), get bicycles to users, improve status and public
acceptance
> > of cyclists and cycling, that is, spend scarce funds more effectively.
> >
> > As for Manhattan't streets -- well, I learned to commute in NYC and
> consider
> > its streets to be as "cyclist-friendly" as any other big city's, that
is,
> > they're great for cycling transportation as long as you know how to
behave
> > properly on the road, which seems like common sense. The west side
bikeway
> > would have been nice for recreational weekend cycling or slow, leisure
> > cycling, but it wouldn't have been useful to me for commuting.
> >
> > I am wondering how many in this list or our sustran network is into
> training
> > how to cycle in traffic -- I think it's one area that has not been
> given due
> > attention.
> >
> > Ramón
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of sustran-discuss V1 #1035
>*******************************

--------------------------------------------------
Christopher Zegras
Research Associate
MIT * Laboratory for Energy & the Environment * Room E40-468
1 Amherst Street * Cambridge, MA 02139
Tel: 617 258 6084 * Fax: 617 253 8013