Commuting trends: transit vs driving vs ...

[tomh009]

I don't think anyone is dismissing cycling, even Mr Outhit. And yes, it has grown faster, but the base is so small that it's still less than 1.5% of the total commuters.

But my challenge to you is, what can we realistically do to get the cycling share to the 4-5% range in the next 10 years? Specifically I would like to see realistic, achievable proposals or suggestions.

As for a reasonable proposal to get to 4-5% in 10 years.  What do you mean by reasonable?  Reasonable engineering schedule wise and cost wise?  That's easy.

There's literally dozens of missing connections between bike infra in the region that could be fixed in 2-3 years work with a few million dollars investment.  Intersections could have bike accommodation added easily with paint, and some flex posts.  Segregated bike lanes could be formed with flex posts and narrowing lanes.  In many places road diets should be accomplished with paint and flex posts or planters.

They keys are,

a) We have many overbuilt roads with plenty of space for infra through road diets, or in some cases just painting the damn lines, that we aren't even considering doing.
b) We should be tightening turns and narrowing lanes to make roads safer in general.
c) We should be fixing intersections and missing links in the existing network.

Frankly, if the political will was there, these could be accomplished within 5 years, within the current budget with reasonable reallocations, and that would easily get us a network that would put probably half the population within a safe comfortable bike ride of work.  Of course, we're not even close to that right now.  Right now, we have opposition and discussion about putting bike lanes in extra space on roads that's literally used for nothing.  We have discussion about whether speed bumps should be built literally in the bike lanes.  We have "walk your bike signs" appearing at intersections around the region.

So no, I don't think any of this is reasonable in 10 years politically.  I don't know what the answer is.  The region seems plenty willing to spend money on infra, but few in the region or cities seem willing to build proper infrastructure, or to reduce car speeds or make intersections safer.  When vision zero is discussed at council, the main point being made is how inconvenient it would be to motorists to not kill people.

Frankly, it's demoralizing and depressing given that the path forward to a working system seems so easily and straightforward, and the challenges are institutional and political.  On the other hand, the uptown bike lanes are such a gigantic leap forward, it keeps some hope alive.

I said "reasonable and achievable" so unfortunately the latter part necessarily drags politics into the picture. If we can't get the politicians to adopt and/or support and/or at least accept the initiatives, they simply won't happen.

Of your three points, (a) seems to have the greatest potential to increase the number of bicycle commuters.  Safety is important, no doubt, but I suspect that making intersections safer would not have a big impact in encouraging people to cycle to work.  So does this initiative, of adding dedicated bike lanes (to how many streets?) have the ability to double the cycling proportion within 10 years?  (The previous 42% increase is over 20 years, or less than 2% per year.)

Things I can think of myself is are improved bicycle parking facilities downtown (our office building actually has a nice big secure room for bicycles, but many buildings do not) -- and improved bicycle sharing infrastructure for people who just want to ride and not deal with ownership.