Things have been crazy busy the last few days with wrapping up our spring social ride series and beginning to plan for the next series, so I thought I’d share this video from the Budapest Critical Mass that Jason at ATXBS posted earlier this week. He made the point that the attendance at this ride was approximately 35,000 people and that the City of Austin’s stated goal is to get 5% of our population, or 38,000 people in today’s population count, commuting by bike everyday by 2020. See what that looks like in this video.
If we’re serious about this goal, we’re going to need a whole hell of a lot more in the way of bikeways, bike boulevards and bike lanes. Not only will this encourage bike use, to move this number of cyclists everyday means actually creating a substantial amount of physical space on our roads to accommodate them. When we see City staff get stymied by a handful of people in creating just one such facility on just one such road, it’s hard for me not to get discouraged. But here’s the deal: change is a foot, gas prices unlike the South will rise again, and we must not be discouraged by minor setbacks. We must let our City know that this really can be the future but not unless we are willing to make real change.
on May 5th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
In 2020, it will be 5% of a much larger number too, probably closer to 50k riders.
I’m telling you, Nueces is far too small to handle all that bike traffic, we’re going to need something like Lamar
on May 5th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
While I see your point, a Critical Mass event has everyone taking the same route at the same time, and obviously that won’t be the case on a daily basis. Has the city looked at the numbers the way they would for a new road – ie peak travel times and number of bikes per route?
on May 5th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
5% is, what, 6x what the current figure is?
Then it’s pretty easy to guess at what it would look like — every time you see one cyclist, imagine that you see six instead of one.
Places that are bike heavy now — downtown, UT, etc. — would probably be less affected, and places that aren’t would be more affected — but really, it wouldn’t have to look *that* different (a lot more bikes, but still, may more cars than bikes) to hit 5%.
on May 6th, 2010 at 7:42 am
First, awesome video. Thanks for sharing. I love the end where everybody raises their bikes over their heads.
Hard to say what 38,000 cyclists every day would look like. Certainly, that would mean more than 30,000 less cars every day.
What’s the biggest critical mass ride Austin has ever had? We should try for 20,000.
on May 6th, 2010 at 7:46 am
Actually, Doug, I’d expect the bike heavy places to be more affected than others. When looking at majority market adoption in other countries and other types of technology, you reach tipping point where the activity gets accepted by early majority market. This is where the explosive growth occurs, but they need to see lots of people doing it to cross over. Add to this the bike heavy areas usually have the best facilities or most bikeable roads also encouraging more use. Basically, growth with market adoption like this does not occur uniformly across the market area (look at center city Portland versus the suburbs.)
Comparing this video to what rush hour will look like is hyperbole for sure, but 38,000 or more people on the road on bikes is going to be a lot no matter how you cut it.
on May 6th, 2010 at 7:47 am
I guess what I’m saying is 5% will probably look like 10% in urban core and 2% in the ‘burbs.
on May 6th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Anyone know off the top of their head how many rode on last years Bike to Work day?
on May 6th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
My memory is foggy on that, but I don’t believe they’ve ever had more than 1000 check-in at those stations.
on Sep 8th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
“. . . to move this number of cyclists everyday means actually creating a substantial amount of physical space on our roads to accommodate them.”
Really? Removing one car makes room for how many bikes? A 3-lane road with 2,000 vehicles per hour is busy, near the peak of its capacity. 2,000 cyclists per hour can comfortably use the curb lane at nowhere near capacity.
The real problem is secure parking for 50K bikes. Work on that. The roadways are already good. We daily commuters already know it.
on Sep 9th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
It will be a great day when one of our problems is how to securely park thousands of bikes. If I see more than 4 other people commuting by bike while I’m riding to work in the morning I get a warm fuzzy feeling all over. If I saw 100 I would probably go into shock. This is up here in the suburban wasteland, though. I guess you see more bikes down south.
on Sep 9th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Yes, I think Jeff is putting the cart before the horse here. I do not believe lack of bike parking is the reason people are not riding a bike to work or errands. Yes, that can be a problem in certain locations even now, but people aren’t even getting out the door so the point is kind of moot.
As for space, I’d gladly designate the right lane as bike only. That would fit a ton of people. Good idea!
on Sep 9th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I would be a great day when we see a huge increase in bike commuting and have to concern ourselves with how to get them all parked securely.
But do you really think the major obstacle to that day is lack of roadway capacity for bicycles, that we need to create “a substantial amount of physical space on our roads to accommodate them?” We have the space, we don’t have the riders. Even though a non-rider will tell you he might ride if he had a safe bike lane from home to office, you’ll find that he’ll have another excuse if he got the magic bike lane. It’s too far, it’s too hot, it’s too expensive, it’s too messy, there’s too much stuff to to carry, I have to pick up my kid, it’s too dangerous (despite the bike lane), it’s too hard, etc. etc. If, OTOH, the same guy starts to ride regularly, he’ll find the streets as they are, for the most part, are more than adequate.
And they are more than adequate, for the most part, even if we were to get several hundred friends to join each of us biking to work instead of driving. And even before that, even when it’s only a few dozen more for each of us, then there will be enough demand for special parking and other bicycle accomodations. Until then, there’s no real call to put a dozen extra feet of impervious cover to create additonal space for bikes. The room is already there. That space is plenty safe. Every lane is a bike lane.
While a right hand lane for bikes only may sound like a good idea, in practice you’d need a bikes only and cars only traffic signal to mediate right-hand turns at every curb cut and intersection along the way, wouldn’t you? (I have seen implemented pretty well in downtown areas a right-hand lane designated for bike, buses, and right turns only. No need to change much of anything for how traffic works together for that.)
on Sep 10th, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Jeff,
The low cost and ease of use for the automobile is without a doubt the main reason people choose to drive. Part of Copenhagen’s success came from making it expensive and difficult to use a car. Whether it’s our choice or the market foists its upon us, cost and ease of use to be a major factor in moving people to alternatives. However, cost alone is not enough. If the distance to do simple things is long and the route hostile to bike use, it creates a situation where riding a bike becomes difficult for those not already adapted to the situation. The way land is developed and space made for people is important. The other side of Copenhagen is that they completely closed streets to all automotive traffic.
In the end, making space for bikes is more about the psychology of things than pure safety. If people see facilities, it elevates the bike as an equal player instead of a 3rd class citizen. You are saying bikes matter and are equally valid. There are many ways to do that: colored bikelanes, divided bike lanes, bike paths, lights timed to bikes, ample secure and covered bike parking, bicycle boulevards. I’m not married to any one particular form, but I do think we need to communicate that bikes are equal. We also need to listen to the barriers to entry for those who are not currently making that choice and not dismiss them. In the end, it’s what’s in their mind when making the choice, not what we want it to be.
on Sep 10th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
“If people see facilities, it elevates the bike as an equal player instead of a 3rd class citizen.”
“Separate but equal,” you mean?
It IS psychology. Every “bike lane” tells the non-rider and the new rider and the auto driver that one should never ride anywhere else. That’s psychology for you. You already know that the “safety” angle for bike lanes is imaginary, but it’s a strong image to implant, isn’t it? The safety image plays well to the public, because they already assume cycling is far more dangerous than it really is. And right along with the safety message is the “segregate out the third class citizen riders for their own danged good” image. It works. Put a rider on the other side of a stripe and we know for certain that an unequal mode of transportation is being employed.
I’m not saying that the street system of this city can’t be improved for bicycle transporation. There are many ways to do that without segregating what is already a safe mode unnecessarily for fantasy reasons. Ample bicycle parking (covered or not), well-maintained shoulders, short bike lanes (or sharrows) placed to the left of right-turn-only lanes to illustrate to the unschooled drivers and cyclists the proper lane position for forward-bound bicycle traffic, signed routes, “bikes may use full lane” signage, contraflow bike lanes on one-way streets (yellow striped, please), “share the road” signage, providing easier means of crossing busy large roadways. And communication that bikes are equal–as part of the drivers/cyclists/gradeschool education system–with equal responsibility to act as responsible members of traffic. Teach a rider how and where to ride safely and responsibly and the rider feels equal, acts as an equal, and achieves equality.
The thing about Copenhagen is that a truly large segment of the populace transporting itself by bicycle will result in a city designed around bicycle use.
on Sep 12th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I will not deny the logic of Jeff’s arguments, but we can see from the empirical evidence that those arguments and viewpoint simply do not work relative to getting more people to bike for transportation.
On the equality front, bikes are not equal to cars. Perhaps under the law (sort of) they are, but we live in a society where many are afraid to drive in cars smaller than SUVs, what does that say about their willingness to ride a bike?
I think it is also shortsighted for us to automatically just want to use the facilities that are designed for motor vehicles, rather than infrastructure that is designed for bikes, and superior to what we would have just by using typical roads. It should be possible to get places quicker by bike than by car in many congested areas of the city. It should be possible to nearly always make a right turn safely, without stopping or slowing down, almost never have to stop at the bottom of a hill, etc. In the same way railroads are designed for the capabilities of trains, bicycle infrastructure should be designed for the capabilities for bicyclists, and not merely patterned after motor vehicle roads. Well, that’s the fantasy anyway.
I will also admit that my comments are inconsistent. I start out citing empirical evidence, and end up in fantasy. So be it.
on Sep 13th, 2010 at 9:58 am
What does get more people biking for transportation is bicycling education. The educated cyclist is not afraid to ride in traffic and does so. Note that the cycling meccas of Copenhagen and the Netherlands both have extensive cycling education in the public schools from an early age, where kids are taught how to opeate their bicycles in traffic, which, naturally, also trains drivers how to operate a car around bicycle traffic.
The streets, ideally, are designed for bikes and cars to operate together, not for cars only. The traffic engineer who designs a street for cars only, without considering bikes, is not doing the job correctly. Still, the difference between a street designed for cars only and for cars + bikes is in practice minimal. e.g., a 12-foot curb lane allows for sharing the lane comfortably. Designing a bikeway for bikes only is very problematic, assuming you aren’t also eliminating cars and trucks altogether. To have two road systems go everywhere everyone wants to go, they have to intersect, and every intersection is a danger point. You are truly better off in the streets we have than in segregated facilities. That doesn’t mean the streets we have can’t be made somewhat better, but better doesn’t realistically mean putting down paint for bikes only. The painted bike lane stripe makes what was already a safe place to ride just a little more difficult to ride, no matter how much more secure it makes the uneducated rider feel.
http://www.labreform.org/training-wheels-bikelanes.htm “Both training wheels and bike lanes encourage novices to ride bikes without learning proper methods — in one case, without learning balance; in the other, without learning how to interact with motor traffic. Both training wheels and bike lanes introduce hazards to their users and both discourage learning of better methods.”
on Sep 13th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
I’m all for education at early ages and as part of driver’s ed & defensive driving, HOWEVER expecting that from adults assumes a someone already has the intense interest to spend time on a weekday evening or a weekend taking a 4-8 hour class. This is the thinking of someone who already rides. Most people aren’t even going to get to that point if they already think riding is dangerous. You need to put yourself in the minds of those people instead of thinking they just need to think like you.
You keep referring to countries with absolutely fabulous bike infrastructure including double bike lanes, bike paths, and streets where cars are banned. Yes, they have education but that is only part of a whole program. You are dismissing a huge part of what makes cycling so accessible in those countries.
on Sep 14th, 2010 at 9:19 am
The roads in Austin could be just fine. A few pot holes could get filled in here and there. The biggest problem is the drivers. Almost all of them are in a hurry. Most of them can’t drive well enough to be trusted with a toy scooter. Many are being distracted by their kids, dogs, cell phone, gps, radio, cigarette lighter etc. Some of them drive aggressively. A few of them are outright hostile and of those a couple are actually looking to pick a fight. They are in vehicles that weigh 2000+lbs and we are on bikes with nothing between our skin and the road except a 2mm layer of fabric and maybe a bit of Styrofoam on our heads. They are going up to 60mph. It doesn’t take an advanced degree in physics to see that in the event of even a minor brush we are at a disadvantage.
Since nothing short of making everyone reapply and retest for their drivers license is going to change this, we need some kind of relief. Decent bike lanes (Jollyville, Braker, Kramer, Metric) make cycling safer, and no, I don’t think it’s just psychological.
on Sep 14th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/33/38/dtg_bikerkilled_2010_09_17_bk.html ” A 4-8 hour course very likely would have prevented this tragedy.
Elliott, you are dismissing a huge part of what makes cycling so accessible in those countries, as I’ve been telling you. The infrastructure can’t work if the infrastructure isn’t ridden with a good working familiarity with good traffic riding skills. By analogy, getting more people shooting guns at deer might help your goal of reducing the deer population, but without firearm safety training, I would fear for the new hunters and everyone around them as well. “We need more people on bikes; let’s get them there by tricking them into thinking that paint will make them safe and that they already have all the skills they need once the paint is down. Or, as another wag put it, bicyclists are pawns and we need more of them. I fear for the new riders in the new bike lanes because I watch them ride.
Imagine that you have child who wants to ride to school. Do you (a) say “there’s the bike lane sweetie; have at it” or do you say (b) let me show you what to do and what not to do so that you can ride safely? Why are you telling the new adult rider “there’s the bike lane; have at it,” when you are fully aware that most adults haven’t a proper idea about what makes them safe or in danger when riding a bike? If your aunt wanted to start riding a bike to work, wouldn’t you want her to develop some riding skills and learn something about how to ride safely in traffic? I want the same for a stranger.
I truly fear for cycling culture, the one in which people ride their bikes competently because they’ve learned from those who ride competently. Bike paths and bike lanes retard the education of the cyclist because they both are inspired by and foster demonstrably wrong thinking about how one can ride safely as a part of traffic. You say that folks already convinced cycling is dangerous won’t get to the point of wanting to learn to ride safely, that expecting them to do so “is the thinking of someone who already rides.” Oddly, in your view, it is people who know that I ride regularly who ask me about how I can so something so dangerous–and they get the opportunity to learn that the danger is largely in their heads, and that just a few hours of practice of basic skills and principles will serve them far better than simply gritting their teeth at the danger and diving in despite it. I’ve known several people who started riding on Albuquerque’s very good (comparatively) off-street bike paths
who gave up–”if it’s that dangerous on the bike path, I don’t see how you can ride in the street.” A little while on my wheel (as I learned, at someone’s wheel) and a little explanation, and those people ride in the street confidently and safely. I’ll remind you that it is easier to do than to ride a bike lane safely, but they can learn that extra bit at my wheel too. I can’t tell you the number of “experienced” cyclists I know who have come late to traffic principles and come back with “I wish I’d been told this years ago–oh the dangerous mistakes I’ve been making.” To a lesser degree, I’m one of those. I had pretty good training as a kid, but about 15 years ago another experienced cyclist gave me a few pointers about lane positioning at intersections that improved things measurably, making my already good riding safer and more enjoyable.
john, I invite you to demostrate just what it is, beyond psychology, that leads you to believe “decent bike lanes (Jollyville, Braker, Kramer, Metric) make cycling safer.” The studies of the matter don’t support that notion, my experience riding in bike lanes in several states and in several other countries doesn’t support it, so what does? I don’t dispute the disadvantage in a brush nor that some drive incompetently and aggressively. Does that mean that you’d be safer on a bike path out of traffic? The statistics don’t show that either. Operating the bicycle as a member of traffic is as safe as you are going to be and that is plenty safe enough, assuming you know what you are doing.
on Sep 15th, 2010 at 8:15 pm
I got my vehicular cyclist merit badge already. I can and do ride in the traffic all of the time. And no, not all bike lanes and paths are good. I’m on my neighborhood traffic calming group and I spoke out against putting in a bike lane when it was brought up. It didn’t make sense to put one in since the road was already wide enough and the cars move relatively slowly. So, no , I don’t feel safer on a separate bike road. And yes, those things can cause problems, especially at intersections.
The point is that traffic lanes can be useful to separate faster moving traffic from slower moving traffic. If bike lanes are so bad because bikes should just mix it up with significantly faster moving cars , why not just do away with lanes altogether? If bikes don’t need lanes (in certain places) then maybe cars don’t either. Why not just put one yellow line down the center of Braker and let all of the vehicles just sort it out amongst themselves?
Or, since I run to work and to do errands, why not start a Vehicular Runner program? I can run a half marathon in 1:35, so that means I can go about 8 miles an hour. I only cycle (fully loaded pannier bags and pulling a trailer full of groceries) at about 12 mph. So would be the difference between running and cycling, in terms of physics, be if I was on Burnet FM1325 by the Domain playing with the cars going 45-55mph?
Seriously, I’m not going that much slower running than cycling. Why not just slap a couple of red blinky tail lights on my ass, wear a neon yellow vest and headlight and then run south along Burnet. If I get to the 183 intersection and want to go to the bowling alley, I can stick my arm out to change lanes, look over my shoulder, make eye contact with drivers, be assertive not aggressive, claim the lane, obey the traffic laws, yada yada just like in a 2000+ lbs cars.
If you saw someone doing that you would think he was crazy, but why shouldn’t someone? In fact, why have side walks at all? As long as the moms pushing their baby strollers obey the laws like the car drivers do, they really don’t need a side walk.
I may actually start a Vehicular Runner website. And on it, I’ll let you know where to send the flowers.
on Sep 15th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Jeff comments about Copenhagen: “The thing about Copenhagen is that a truly large segment of the populace transporting itself by bicycle will result in a city designed around bicycle use.”
When I read articles about that city’s efforts to encourage cycling, what is obvious is that the process went in the reverse from what that quote indicates. They built infrastructure which encouraged more bicycling. They actively tried to figure out what would help and encourage bicycling, then did it, and more people started riding.
on Sep 16th, 2010 at 12:17 am
Indeed. Copenhagen is a good city to look at because they embraced the move to car culture after WWII. Getting to 36% of people commuting by bike did not just happen, and it did not occur by expecting people to ride a bike like a car in traffic. In the 1970s, they make a conscience effort to take back public space from cars and change the transportation mix. This was done in a 2 step approach: building great infrastructure in the form of bikepaths, segregated bike lanes, and bike priority stop lights AND by making using a car expensive and difficult. I do believe we have to do both to get similar results. There were education and public awareness campaigns as well, but I don’t think you can get to majority culture adoption of the bike as a legitimate transportation choice unless you have these first two.
on Sep 17th, 2010 at 8:33 am
I wonder if there are any Danish women running mail order American husband schemes. It seems the only way to move there is to marry a Dane or find work there.
on Sep 17th, 2010 at 10:06 am
We can look at Copenhagen as a fine example of how lots of cycling can work in a big city, but it’s not a good model for how to transform Austin to a heavy cycling city. Seriously, Copenhagen was built around lots of cycling. In 1890, there are about 3000 bikes in Copenhagen (www.cycling-embassy.dk). This number increased in 1900 to 30,000 bikes. Seven years later became 80,000 and continued to increase to 400,000 bikes in Copenhagen in 1934. How many bikes in Austin today? How many are ridden? Even as cycling declined there in the 60s and 70s, the bike modal share was far higher than you are dreaming of in Austin. They have made a good push since the 70s to increase the share. Kudos. They started with (1) a cycling-savvy population and (2) lots of cycling-specific infrastructure (which was erected to facilitate motorized traffic flow amongst the bicycles).
on Sep 17th, 2010 at 10:33 am
John asks an interesting question. “The point is that traffic lanes can be useful to separate faster moving traffic from slower moving traffic. If bike lanes are so bad because bikes should just mix it up with significantly faster moving cars , why not just do away with lanes altogether? ”
Traffic lanes are used to speed up traffic flow, true. Removing the lines has been shown to benefit cycling and pedestrian travel by improving safety around drivers. See
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0127/p01s03-woeu.html and http://www.salon.com/technology/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/ for how it’s being done.
Channelizing traffic by painted lanes is primarily for the benefit of facilitating motorized traffic, not for making biking safer.
on Sep 17th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Interesting articles. I doubt we could do that here, as the attitude that underlies it is so alien to americans. Elsewhere on AOTW is some talk (I think) about making the residential speed limit 20 mph. This approach would do that, but you’d have to be pretty careful about setting it up. The howling and gnashing of teeth about it would make the objections to the bike boulevard sound like the dropping of a pin.
“Channelizing traffic by painted lanes is primarily for the benefit of facilitating motorized traffic, not for making biking safer.”
Not sure I could argue too much about this. On streets that didn’t have bike lanes, and then got restriped, subdividing the right lane into a bike lane and car lane, you can see that it helps the drivers quite a bit in determining if they can pass you, even though the total space is the same. This results in fewer drivers irritated with cyclists. In a sense, nearly all bicycling infrastructure can be seen as benefiting motor vehicle drivers.
I have another question, though. In the comment about vehicular runners, the logic about vehicular cycling is stretched to the point of snapping. What interests me is the relative conditions under which we can say the techniques are no longer valid. Is it the speed of the bicycle, the speed of the traffic, or both, and for what speeds?
on Sep 20th, 2010 at 10:02 am
I’ve seen those articles before and I think they are onto something. If the motorized vehicles were traveling slowly and cautiously we would be pretty safe riding bikes. There would be no need for bike lanes with their confusing intersection issues. I also agree that trying to get that kind of shared space here in Austin would be disastrous. Americans worship personal convenience above all other gods, and slowing down just isn’t going to happen without some other factor entering the picture.
My point wasn’t that all bike lanes are good. It’s that on multi-lane roads where the traffic volume is high, and the difference in speeds between bikes and cars is high, bike lanes give us a space on the road. Yes, bike lanes probably do make motorists happy because were not in their way. If that’s true, than so be it. Would I rather not have these nasty 6-8 lane roads like Parmer, Burent, and Braker? Absolutely. I hate crossing them running, cycling along them, and even driving a car on them. I wish gas would hit $20/gallon and our car culture would come to a crashing end. I think it will have to get worse before it gets better, but in the meantime, dealing with the reality we have, I would rather have bike lanes in certain places.
on Sep 20th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
“I have another question, though. In the comment about vehicular runners, the logic about vehicular cycling is stretched to the point of snapping. What interests me is the relative conditions under which we can say the techniques are no longer valid. Is it the speed of the bicycle, the speed of the traffic, or both, and for what speeds?”
It’s a question worth a thought exercise. Note that (1) pedestrians (walkers and joggers) don’t really apply the rules of the road to their movements and (2) they are hit by cars far more frequently than cyclists. Where are pedestrians getting hit? At intersections and curb cuts, just like sidewalk-riding and bike-path-riding cyclists. And more often when they pop up in the driver’s view unexpectedly (even though they should always be expected). So we might think that a pedestrian moving in the roadway (assuming a lane wide enough to share and not dressed in black when it’s dark out) would be safer than one on the sidewalk.
A major difference is the relative speed of vehicular traffic and pedestrian traffic. A top class runner can average better than 12 mph on level ground for a long run, much like a common bicyclist, but those are very few. But I think it’s more that a pedestriand doesn’t move like a vehicle–even when moving pretty fast, a pedestrian can turn more sharply and stop more quickly than a car or cyclist. That’s part of why it would be hard to enforce a traffic rules standard to pedestrian movements. It’s in the nature of people to think they are safe if they feel safe, and most of the time, walking or jogging feels safer than cycling even though the truth on the ground is that the pedestrian is taking a greater risk. While they might benefit from “vehicular pedestrian” training, in that they might not after training do some of the things that put them in front of cars at the wrong moment, since their movements are so different, they really are a different class of road users.
While bike riders also like to avoid applying general traffic rules to their movements when it feels safe to do so (going forward from a right turn only lane or running a red light or going in a contraflow direction in a bike lane), it’s not as safe as conforming to the rules. And a bike lane, though it is painted along the way a bike ought to be ridden most of the time when away from intersections, is a traffiac control device that in many cases (like at or near intersections) “tells” the bike rider to be in the less safe roadway position and tells the driver that a cyclist in a safer postion outside of the lane (a position drivers don’t question when there’s no bike lane stripe) is “wrong.” It’s the means for reducing a vehicle (the bike) to the level of a pedestrian, like a sidewalk does, even though the bikes movements, capabilities, and needs are more like a car’s than a pedestrian’s.
on Sep 21st, 2010 at 2:00 am
Gas at $20/gal. Well, when I get frustrated enough, I tell myself I can’t wait. Of course, it will have terrible repercussions… It turns out the wait may not be for too much longer. The DOD released a report sometime about march where
“The report of the American Department of Defense (DoD), titled Joint Operating Environemnt 2010 indicates (page 29):
“By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015. the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.”
The DOD is the largest user of Oil in the USA.
Then there is the report from the UK:
The first bombshell was actually dropped on February 10, when the UK Industry Task Force on Peak Oil and Energy Security issued a report called “The Oil Crunch: A wake-up call for the UK economy.” I only mentioned it in passing at the time, but it was a stern warning that “oil shortages, insecurity of supply and price volatility will destabilise economic, political, and social activity potentially by 2015.”
Now, I personally think that what will happen as oil production starts to slide is that we will experience a series of price spikes, which trigger recessions, and reduced demand. This will make the price fall again, until the economy recovers enough to trigger the next cycle.
The collorary is no more economic growth. You can’t make more stuff without energy to do it. Coal is also more limited than people realize. That 250 year suppily estimate has not been updated in over 20 years. Recent studies show something more like 30-50 year suppily.
We need to be building electrified rail systems, like most other modern nations have already. But I doubt we will do it in time. In fact, if the suppily predictions are about right, its already about 5-10 years too late to do much about it.
Sorry about the doom and gloom. I try not to let that slip out much these days, as people simply won’t listen to it anyway.
on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Getting back on subject….
Jeff, interesting remarks about pedestrians and bikes, that seems to address the low end of the speed spectrum, but I was wondering about things at higher speeds.
For example, applying vehicular cycling to riding on loop 360, where the traffic speed is usually about 60mph. Personally, I don’t have the guts to try it except in limited ways perhaps. Specifically, what is the recommendation for crossing entry and exit ramps?
on Sep 22nd, 2010 at 10:36 pm
My recommendation for 360 is to just plan on riding out the exit/entrance ramps at 2222 and 2244. The only reason to ride 360 is for the exercise anyway, so why not get in a little extra and drop down and back up again at these intersections? Call it a hill workout. Why risk being killed by some rich twit a hole in an suv while trying to cross over from the shoulder (akaa bike lane) to the other shoulder (akaa bike lane)? Have you seen the ghost bikes they put out there?
Vehicular cycling makes all the sense in the world in many many places…..but not on 360. I will join the VC club at the Platinum Level on the day I see all of the biggest mouths in VC movement ride 360 without using the shoulders.
on Sep 23rd, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Dave and John. If you are truly interested in using 360 safely, let me suggest: https://www.austincycling.org/education/classes/shoulder_class
Riding the shoulder when appropriate and leaving the shoulder when appropriate is VC. That shouldn’t be too hard to understand.
But building bike facilities to get us all biking without understanding VC principles isn’t helping. Read the following, please
—————————
FROM http://limeport.org/2009/05/bike-lanes-bicycle-friendly-communities/
Even today, long after the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) tried to improve the state of the art of bicycle facility design, through the publication of its first (1981) edition of its Guide to Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO Guidelines), abysmal stuff gets built, and the nation has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on dangerous designs.
The AASHTO Guidelines are far, far from perfect. They provide only the first step towards understanding how a bicycle facility can be worse than no facility at all. (Even LAB’s policy statement on bicycle facilities says so!) But in all these decades, the AASHTO Guidelines have either been ignored entirely or minimally interpreted.
Door zone bike lanes, bike lanes that put cyclists in conflict with pedestrians trying to get to the bus, bike lanes that put cyclists in motorists’ blind spots at intersections, bike lanes that have dangerous sewer grates, broken glass and other junk…. truly, bike lanes in America are an experiment that has failed. The people who advocate bike lanes have had decades to show that they could enforce quality control, and they have failed to do so. Ominously, many states that build the worst bike lanes also have state laws requiring cyclists to ride in them! And too often, bike lane advocates refuse to discuss quality control.
But the public is so conditioned to think that this is “doing something” for bicyclists that too few people stop to view the benefits of building nothing, instead using the money to keep the pavement in good condition, and educating the cyclists how to use the road.
Bicycle Friendly Communities doesn’t reward this far superior alternative.
I won’t discuss every type of bikelane-caused accident in this essay, but one that really should make the conscience scream is the “coffin corner” bike lane. In a “coffin corner” bike lane, the bike lane is striped solid to the intersection, so that the bicyclist who plans to ride straight through the intersection is positioned to the right of right-turning motor traffic.
[COFFIN CORNER ILLUSTRATED]
The Bicycle Friendly Communities program favors “coffin corner” bike lanes and gives them awards and verbal praise.
Coffin corner bike lanes kill people. The bicyclist riding straight is in the blind spot of the turning motorist. The city of Amsterdam (yes, THAT Amsterdam) had four fatalities in barrier “separated” coffin corner bike lanes in 2006. In 2007, Portland, Oregon had two fatalities and Seattle had one. In 2008, Washington DC had one. In 2009 so far, Minneapolis has had one. (Minneapolis’s was a bike lane on the left side of a one-way street, and involved a collision between a bicyclist and a left-turning motorist.)
Corruption run rampant: shortly after the Portland fatalities, the Portland bicycle coordinator announced that he was not changing this bike lane design. LAB Executive Director Andy Clarke praised the Portland coordinator for his “courage” in sticking with this design. It would have shown far more courage to admit a tragic mistake.
This is not a simple case of “it was just an accident.” The Portland bike lane design violates absolutely every common-sense principle of traffic engineering, violates the AASHTO guidelines, violates other traffic engineering standards books, and requires bicyclists to put their faith in motorists’ ability to see a rapidly moving tiny target pop into view in a rear-view mirror that is inevitably vibrating, while also scanning for other traffic, pedestrians and road hazards in front of the motor vehicle.
I don’t think most people realize just how radical and irresponsible the coffin corner is. It is put there specifically to lure unskilled and unaware cyclists to use their bikes, and puts them where they are in the most danger. It disappoints me bitterly that LAB is willing to compromise safety so much to put “butts on bikes.” Why not instead teach these unskilled and unaware people what they need to know?
on Sep 24th, 2010 at 1:24 am
We had just such a fatality here in Austin in the last year or so, except there was no bike lane involved.
An interesting exception to this practice is striped on highway 620, through the intersection where the Wal-Mart is located. I can’t quite shake the nagging feeling that they are just going to study the number of accidents for this design and compare it to others, but then nearly all traffic designs are studied in this way.
I take exception to this: “and requires bicyclists to put their faith …” A piece of paint cannot do that. It can suggest that one is safe, however wrong that may be.
In real life, many, if not most, people act as if that bike lane is striped right through that corner.
Another thing I muse upon, from time to time, is that there is no commonly accepted way of riding a bicycle in city traffic. The driver’s handbook says very little, and it would be nice if there was a real section on it, or perhaps a bicycle handbook… assuming that there was a accepted way of riding. It seems sufficient for most to just say to obey traffic law, but experienced riders know that is almost the least of what you need to do and know.
Regarding 360, I am not very inclined to take that class, since there is no information. I rather suppose they will just tell me the stuff I already know. That was my experience reading Effective Cycling when it came out. Pretty much just the stuff that I had already learned, although there were a few interesting things. At least, that’s how I remember it, its been a long time.
Anyway, I think the biggest weakness, and perhaps the most irritating thing about VC (and I don’t mean Violet Crown
is its acceptance of the status quo, and actual hostility towards improving road conditions for cyclists.
on Sep 24th, 2010 at 10:11 am
I think that if you’d really examine VC advocacy, you won’t find “actual hostility towards improving road conditions for cyclists”
– instead you’ll find that they resist making things worse.
“When facilities development is considered, start with the physician’s rule: First, Do no harm! Since Front St. already was a very good road for cycling, they could have just left it alone, except to fix the problem with the poorly marked turn lane shown in the top-right photo.” as Fred Oswald wrote http://cycle-safety.com/berea.htm
A bike lane isn’t a “win” of any kind if the roadway was better before it was laid than after.
Instead, we (and cyclists to follow us) would be better served to have a “commonly accepted way of riding a bicycle in city traffic.” I’d prefer that to be the one that accident statistics show works best for keeping cyclist safe, i.e., operating the bicycle as a vehicle according to the same rules as the rest of traffic.
on Sep 24th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Circulating around is this video: http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/09/23/more-bikes-means-slower-bikes/
Salmon’s comments are of the general “oh, there are two kinds of cyclists and we need to pay attention to both kinds” nature. I agree. But if there are two kinds of cyclists, the proficient and the non-proficient, why has NYC put the 1st Ave. bike lane to the left of left-turning traffic and in places between the sidewalk and parking so that riders are reduced to pedestrian speeds in order to contend with the extra hazards? The proficient hate it because it’s more dangerous and less efficient and the nonproficient (who may “feel” “secure”) visibly don’t have the knowledge or skills to ride the space safely.
But in the end, is the goal to get more people on bikes in dangerous spaces using dangerous practices or to get the people who are riding to ride in safer spaces with safer practices? I’d say the latter. Why would you say otherwise?
The latter is safer, the latter is cheaper, the latter is more (ahem) effective.
on Sep 24th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
I should add that it’s a false premise that there are two “breeds” of bikers, as it is being put there in the article.
Proficient riders can go slowly and leisurely when desired or necessary. Non proficient riders are on their way to becoming proficient riders, if we give them the opportunity. The illustrated bike lane is (1) a manifestation of the assumption that the non-proficient will never befome proficient and so need to be treated as feeble and (2) an impediment to learning best practices.
on Sep 27th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
well Jeff, it’s simple. VC doesn’t work. It doesn’t work as a means of getting more people to ride their bicycles for transport.
Can you cite any counterexample that shows that VC education without infrastructure improvements has led to significant increases in bicycling?
on Sep 28th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Ahem. It’s simple. VC works to the extent of VCs goals. The goals of VC comprise teaching people the safest way to ride from place to place. It’s not a matter of getting more people to ride; it’s a matter of ensuring that those who ride enjoy it and survive it. I say if you want more people to ride, ride and serve as an example of how easy and safe it can be.
Increasing cycling infrastructure doesn’t work, to the extent the goal of the projects is to increase cycling numbers. And is “increasing cycling” the stated goal of those pushing for the facilities? No, it’s for “cyclists’ safety.” So, we have the stated goal–safety–shown as not met by obvious safety problems the facilities themselves create. For the unstated goal, increasing numbers, well– “Between the late 1980s and early 1990s the Netherlands spent 1.5 billion guilders (US$945 million) on cycling infrastructure, yet cycling levels stayed practically the same. When the flagship Delft Bicycle Route project was evaluated, the results were ‘not very positive: bicycle use had not increased, neither had the road safety. A route network of bicycle facilities has, apparently, no added value for bicycle use or road safety.’”
Now, imagine if instead of $900 million (REMEMBER, THE NETHERLANDS IS NOT SO BIG AS TEXAS ALONE) being spent on lanes and on paths (and consider also the ongoing maintenance costs of the same), just half of that was spent to ensure that the roadways we have are maintained with cyclists in mind and the other half was spent on ensuring that those inclined to cycle had the necessary traffic skills. How would that go toward the goal of keeping people cycling. Hell, we could even buy hundreds of people bikes with that amount of money.
I’ll throw in another bit for you too, Dave. If we desire people to cycle to work in Austin, we need to consider travel times. I have ridden European cycling facilities in European cities, and I can tell you with great certainty–most of those were erected to benefit motor traffic, not the cyclists. By their design, cycling speeds are reduced greatly compared to riding in the roadway with traffic. The roads are more convenient to one’s destinations, faster, and safer. If I am able to average 14 mph on my way to work, I have the time and inclination to do it. Reduce that to 10 mph, and I am certain that even I, a dedicated cycling commuter, would opt for the car with far greater frequency. Work is too far for me to bother with 10 mph and 10 mph is a fanciful average speed on some of the European facilities I’ve ridden. They are functional for the average European trip of about 2 miles. In Austin, two mile trips don’t get you many places you’d want to go and the roadways will serve you better, and will be the route people who will keep cycling will be cycling.
What works to get more people cycling? Costs. Travel costs something in terms of time and money. If it’s not a lot of money or time, why not take the car? We had more cyclists alongside me at the brief era of $4/gallon gasoline than we do today. Slow the cars down and more would ride, boost gas prices and more would ride. Increase my cycling travel time, and I drive instead.
on Sep 28th, 2010 at 9:18 am
I’ve avoided wading into this lengthy discourse, but I just want to add these 2 cents:
Vehicular cycling is a philosophy that chooses to ignore primal human psychology. You can tell people until you are red in the face that riding as a vehicle is safer, yet they will not believe you. On the flip side, as long as we have streets built to move cars as fast as possible, drivers will see cyclists as an unnecessary barrier slowing them down. I take issue with any philosophy that chooses to ignore what drives us as humans.
Aside from safety, infrastructure matters and communicates the value a society puts on something. If you build wheelchair ramps everywhere, that communicated facilities are accessible to the disabled whether you are in a wheelchair or not. In the instance of transit, streetcars have a much larger impact on riderships and the way neighborhoods are built than bus lines. The infrastructure of rail lines, overhead wires, and station platforms communicate a level of investment and permanence that says transit is important. Can you move as many people with buses? Yes, yet the result is not the same.
Similarly, building bicycle infrastructure communicates to everyone that cycling is of equal value to cars. Not only does it lower the perceived safety barrier to those considering cycling, but it tells everyone else that we consider cycling legitimate enough to spend money on it and make facilities for it.
Maybe that’s not the way it should be, but it is. VC is based on an idea of the way the world should be instead of the way it is, and that’s why I don’t think it works for getting more people cycling.
on Sep 28th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Primal human psychology is it now? Again, you conclude with your evaluation whether VC works for getting more people to ride. Trouble is, VC doesn’t state that as a goal. VC is how people should ride when they do ride, for their own safety and enjoyment. Whether they do ride is up to them. How to get them to choose to ride is a different problem. When you can get people to ride, I recommend you get them to operate their bicycles as vehicles. Don’t you? In the end, they’ll be safer and more satisfied. Or, you could try to get people to ride by methods that re-affirm their fears of riding, which, of course, keeps them fearful and which, as we VCists have found, foster riding behaviors that should make them fearful (and which sometimes do, but sometimes don’t).
Primal human psychology tells us that the one on the other side of the stripe is the “other,” one not like me. To a driver, the bike lane stripe defines the bicyclist as the other and not a driver. To a bicyclist, the bike lane stripe identifies the cyclist himself as other than a driver. Thanks, primal psychology–Second class citizenship is achieved and readily consented to. Don’t ignore psychology, Elliott.
Human psychology leads us to try to find “solutions” to the conundrum (let’s provide a segregated “safe’ place to ride that people still find doesn’t meet their inner feelings of what a good ride would be) by pursuing the same strategy (I guess the facility isn’t segregated enough! More stripes! (See S. Congress today, compare it to S. Congress of a few months ago, and compare that to S. Congress of a few years ago–More and more stripes over time and more and more cross-traffic and right hook problems and wrongway bicycling as a result). More barriers! (barriers are worse than the problem being addressed) Farther off the roadway! Mandatory helmets! It’s a pipe dream. Putting bikes in with the rest of traffic is better for the traffic and better for the bicyclihg (also traffic). Stripes on S. Congress haven’t increased bike traffic as far as I can see over the past few years (gas prices did, briefly).
It leads, and by calling for the facilities you are leading actively, to banning bicycles from the roadway. Roadways are plenty safe, but the longer and louder you call for “bike lanes” “bike paths” “separate signals for bike paths” “bike boulevards” and the like, the more you are telling people that cycling is too dangerous an activity to engage in normally and that if we are going to allow cycling in the first place, we shouldn’t allow it on the roads.
Elliott and Dave and I know that cycling in the streets is not particularly dangerous (at least I know that), so why foster the fears? When we ride (I assume) we ride as a vehicle in traffic, according to the same principles as if we were driving a very narrow, slow, motor vehicle. Do we not? How do you teach your child to ride, guys? Do you say “stay on the right hand side of that bike lane stripe no matter what the cars are doing?” The stripe “tells” us that, in the language of roadway traffic controls.
Primal human psychology may very will respond to a mere perceived reduction of safety, but when experience with the real world makes the facilities set up for the “special” bike driver unsatisfactory, primal human psychology leads the bike driver to see cycling as an unsatisfactory solution to transportation problems. Too bad, since cycling in traffic as a part of traffic is so easy to learn. That is, it is easy to learn if cyclists are treated as a normal part of traffic. But, I’ve forgotten, you’re against that, aren’t you?
You started off the discussion by saying that getting thousands of cyclists on the roads requires heavy expenditures in special facilities because we’ll need more physical space to accomodate them. Why? I still can’t figure that out. Replacing 5,000 cars with 20,000 bikes is easy in the space we have–unless you count parking them (and parking would be pretty easy to set up too). What’s hard is creating the additional space in the hope that some might choose to ride. In many places, heavy expenditures in such extra spaces haven’t found the ridership growing. To expect it to, ignores primal human psychology. The ones who want to ride will ride. How should they ride when they do? That’s the real question, even if we imagine 38,000 more of them doing it.
on Sep 29th, 2010 at 11:32 am
I think there are a few conclusions to be made at this point.
- VC as a riding discipline is not going to impact the future of cycling advocacy and infrastructure, because these issues are not the focus of VC.
- many attempts to build out bicycling infrastructure have had problems.
- despite difficulties, cycling in the Netherlands is 5 times less dangerous than here.
- even the flawed bicycle lane in manhatten? reduced accidents by 50%
- infrastructure is going to get built.
on Sep 29th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
VC does have a role in the future of cycling advocacy and infrastructure–it is part of the focus of VC–when you are advocating for cycling, try to keep in mind the principal of bicycles operated as vehicles and don’t screw up riding where riding is already safe and convenient. As in doctoring, the first principal should be “do no harm.”