Live far or near cycling infrastructure?

[Crankin]

I don't really live near any cycling infrastructure. One path is 8 miles away and the other is 5 miles away. The first one is the busiest bike path in the country; I didn't even ride it until last year. It is impossible, except mid-week, midday. It does go places I might want to shop or go out to eat, though. The other one is brand new. It goes along a good part of the route I drive to my internship. It is supposed to go through my town, but I have doubts it will ever get here. A lot of dissent about this, even though there are thousands of cyclists. The main gripe is that it will ruin a currently dirt trail that runs a long a pond by being paved. The abutting homeowners think cyclists (and joggers) will pee in their yards . The people complaining want the path to be crushed stone in Concord, but that would eliminate use by people with strollers, wheelchairs, etc.
The only cycling infrastructure I would like has to do with workplace stuff. I ride mostly on semi-rural country roads or suburban roads. There are tons of cyclists around here and drivers are mostly used to us. I don't need a bike lane. You can take your bike on the commuter rail that leaves from Concord during non-peak hours. We don't have bus service.

[OakLeaf]

Lest you think this is only about non-motorized vehicles ...

there was recently a situation near me where a guy who lived in a condo complex wanted covered parking for his motorcycle, which was his only transportation. Particularly in the winter, there was an issue with the parking lot snowplow creating a tall ice berm over which he was unable to haul his bike. He put up a little portable shed that fit entirely within his assigned parking space, but the management made him take it down.

Just throwing that out there ... I don't really have an opinion whether there ought to be separate parking for motorcycles.

I will also say that I'm much more irritated by structures that are designated as bicycle racks, but have basically zero practical application for that purpose ... there might be four or five loops, but the only way to secure a bicycle to the thing is to lean ONE bicycle crosswise across the whole thing, and if it's close to a building, you can't even put a second bicycle on the other side. I'm actually happier if I can lock my bike to a signpost, a park bench, or a tree than if I feel I have to use one of those so-called racks.

[shootingstar]

A lot of dissent about this, even though there are thousands of cyclists. The main gripe is that it will ruin a currently dirt trail that runs a long a pond by being paved. The abutting homeowners think cyclists (and joggers) will pee in their yards . The people complaining want the path to be crushed stone in Concord, but that would eliminate use by people with strollers, wheelchairs, etc.
The only cycling infrastructure I would like has to do with workplace stuff. I ride mostly on semi-rural country roads or suburban roads. There are tons of cyclists around here and drivers are mostly used to us. I don't need a bike lane. You can take your bike on the commuter rail that leaves from Concord during non-peak hours. We don't have bus service.

Peeing cyclists.....OMIG...are we all really that uncouth in civilized, highly surburban areas?

If given a choice, I would rather have path pavement type to include wheelchairs and strollers. There's no real rationale anymore, to limit many different users in this type of manner. None. Otherwise it's dinosaur thinking.

[oz rider]

1 car parking space probably could easily hold 6 bikes comfortably or more. It's a wonderful, cheap way to "sell" or lease a occupacy space for tenants or residents.

I discussed this at length with a green developer recently. For a development 5km from the CBD, the council insisted on 2 car parks per unit, which entrenches car dependency and lower density. Most people will only make the switch to walk/PT/bike when it's more convenient so encouraging cars is just silly. However he also thought communal bike parking was ok and I disagree. We allocate unique car parking spaces but seriously expect communal parking of valuable portable items like bikes? If it's not sufficiently secure to chain up the hifi or the artwork to the rail, why expect cyclists to do the same? Or are we unwittingly treating bikes with less respect? How about we fit in two or four secure, usable spaces instead of six second rate ones?

I don't really live near any cycling infrastructure.

I'm surrounded by it, and it takes me anywhere I want to go. It's called roads. Why spend money on duplicate (or separated) infrastructure when it already exists? Sure, separated facilties help some people get started, but if drivers make the roads unsafe for other users, surely it is the issue of driving unsafely that needs to be addressed. With education and advice for cyclists about alternative routes where major roads are impractical. Just a thought.

[shootingstar]

I'm surrounded by it, and it takes me anywhere I want to go. It's called roads. Why spend money on duplicate (or separated) infrastructure when it already exists? Sure, separated facilties help some people get started, but if drivers make the roads unsafe for other users, surely it is the issue of driving unsafely that needs to be addressed. With education and advice for cyclists about alternative routes where major roads are impractical. Just a thought.

I actually think it's worse now with regarding our "trust" or expectations/hope that drivers would drive more safely.

*Now with the added distraction of drivers using their cellphone or texting while driving or at least distracted, a factor that never existed even 20 yrs. ago., no I don't trust the situation.

*Our population is also aging and probably enough of them, still insisting on driving when they are in their 80's, when really they shouldn't be on the highways or on busy roads. (Would that include some /many of us one day?? )

*Our laws have not changed to severely penalize drivers who injure or kill cyclists if they are at fault.

The argument about not having some separate routes for bikes is not bad, except it's gotten us nowhere in encouraging lots of people to bike, when we never had any bike paths or bike lanes 30 yrs. ago. Except the difference was maybe the roads weren't as busy in certain urban areas compared to now??

Painting a wide enough bike lane and modifying traffic light times on a wide, 4 multiple lane road that is only heavily used for 5 hours out of 24 hrs. each day, really isn't a big deal in some areas of a city. Most cities have some roads like this. It's cheaper to start with this. The reality is that if you had a teenager cycling, where would you like the person to "graduate" to heavier traffic roads in terms of cycling.

Driver education not to speed? I dunno. How many of us go over the speed limit...honest? Well, are traffic calming circles particularily in some residential areas, useful if the road is wide enough? Certainly useful for big hills stopping in residential intersections, in terms of cars and bikes shooting down.

[oz rider]

Absolutely agree with a lot of that shootingstar; I just think we are nibbling at a problem that requires big bites, nursing the victims rather than fixing the problem. And there does not seem to be a silver bullet - it will take political will and a multi-pronged approach using the best of behavioural research beyond simple enforcement. Most people won't be simply encouraged to ride; it will happen for most when it becomes the easiest/cheapest option; the path of least resistance if you like. And that needs things like congestion taxes, strict liability, end-of-trip facilities, sensible bike parking, safety etc. The gently gently route will be long and slow, and maybe that's all society can stomach.