"Bay Area Bike Share program rolls out ambitious growth plan" (San Jose: 2014)

[darkeconomist]

Bay Area Bike Share program rolls out ambitious growth plan

In San Francisco, the number of bikes would jump from 328 to 4,500; in San Jose from 129 to 1,000. In the East Bay, 850 bikes would go to Oakland, 400 to Berkeley and 100 to Emeryville.

Emphasis mine.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

Bay Area Bike Share program rolls out ambitious growth plan


Emphasis mine.

I HATE how they took out car lanes to make more bike lanes downtown (and now on Lincoln Ave., too). It doesn't create any more cyclists and just creates even worse traffic jams at rush hour.

[ketch89]

Except that they do create new cyclists, empirically.

Protected bike lanes increase bike traffic by 75%, a new study finds - Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition

Just because YOU won't ever change your behavior, doesn't mean that others won't.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by ketch89

Except that they do create new cyclists, empirically.

Protected bike lanes increase bike traffic by 75%, a new study finds - Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition

Just because YOU won't ever change your behavior, doesn't mean that others won't.

Yeah, you do a study on the downtown streets and tell me there are more cyclists on them. I really am not surprised a study done by a cyclist group would come to this conclusion. They're hardly a neutral disinterested party. And until recently, we still had tons of people riding bikes on the sidewalks downtown, especially on San Fernando St., even though it already had bike lanes. Finally, the city passed an ordinance banning bike riding on the sidewalks on certain streets and started enforcing it. Streets like 3rd & 4th already had bike lanes and they added additional lanes on the other side of the street. Ridiculous.

Oh, and for the record, I WALK to work every day, so I really am NOT interested in that snarky tone you took with me. I am not one of the people fighting in traffic. Taking out lanes on busy streets for bike lanes is ridiculous for an sprawling, auto-centric area. The money could have been better spent on improving transit.

[ketch89]

The study was by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities, which is a wing of the U.S. D.O.T. Is the DOT not neutral enough for you?

When people ride on sidewalks, it's because they don't feel safe in the street with cars. How about you walk in the road with cars? ... Yeah doesn't sound nice, does it? Vulnerable road users need the protection of curbs, and until most streets have curb-protected or raised cycletracks, you'll still have people riding on sidewalks.

San Jose is one of the healthiest cities in America with fantastic weather and flat topography. If people felt safe riding their bikes to transit, so many more could actually use the transit that exists in sprawling San Jose.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by ketch89

The study was by the National Institute for Transportation and Communities, which is a wing of the U.S. D.O.T. Is the DOT not neutral enough for you?

Nope. I really don't think it applies to the situation I see downtown.

Originally Posted by ketch89;39211773When people ride on sidewalks, it's because they don't feel safe in the street with cars. How about you [B

walk in the road with cars[/b]? ..

Well, like I said, they already have bike lands on San Fernando street. I don't see what else they could do.

. Yeah doesn't sound nice, does it? Vulnerable road users need the protection of curbs, and until most streets have curb-protected or raised cycletracks, you'll still have people riding on sidewalks.[/quote]

Yeah, well it's ironic that the bike people don't feel safe and then they do the same thing to pedestrians as they complain about cars doing to them.

Originally Posted by ketch89

San Jose is one of the healthiest cities in America with fantastic weather and flat topography. If people felt safe riding their bikes to transit, so many more could actually use the transit that exists in sprawling San Jose.

The problem is, SJ simply wasn't built either for transit or bikes. We need to retrofit where we can...but it is never going to to be San Francisco or NYC or anything close. When you're taking out lanes on busy city streets for bikes, that's taking things too far (especially when, like I said, they already had bike lanes). I'm sure you won't agree.

[ketch89]

It's ok mysticaltyger, don't concern yourself with complicated things. I'm a professional urban planner, I'll work on it for you.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I HATE how they took out car lanes to make more bike lanes downtown (and now on Lincoln Ave., too). It doesn't create any more cyclists and just creates even worse traffic jams at rush hour.

Unfortunately, the available data is against your position. Broadening the network of bike lanes and bicycle-safe streets has been shown to increase the number of riders.

We don't see higher cyclist counts partly because it is still only April and partly, perhaps largely, because the network of convenient, safe cyclist infrastructure is small and fragmented. The Lincoln avenue bike lanes, for instance, don't offer a broad reach. So, to get from Willow Glen to DTSJ for work by bike requires, at some point, riding on streets without bike infrastructure. Lincoln itself, north of Lonus? End of the line. Coe? No. Auzerias? Nope. Bird north of Virginia? Nothing there. San Carlos? Nope.

The problem we face as a city is that we are fully built out in road capacity yet adding new residents at about 16k/year (official number), every year, so we have to transition to modes that allow higher density of users--buses/BRT, bikes, etc. And, frankly, for the cost of BART to DTSJ ($4 billion for 6 miles) we could build tens of thousands of miles of bike lanes (avg. $100k/mile for a nice, protected lane). Given the official ridership projection, it means we'd be spending $133k/daily rider. In terms of what makes economic sense, bikes are just the way to go.

[ggcd951]

all those whiners and intertwiners are fools, think about how inefficient 2-ton vehicles and its energy wasted to move around average of 200-lbs meat everyday /multiple this inefficiency by the population/ contributing to global warming. Cities should become more like Amsterdam.