(11-30-2017, 12:36 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: It's easy to dismiss cycling when you frame things in particular ways. There's been a roughly 0% increase in the proportion of driving commuters, but by Jeff's own quoted numbers, cycling commuters have gone from 1830 to 2600, a 42% increase. Driving attracted 47,895 new commuters while transit attracted 8,155, driving attracting a bit less than 6 times as many new commuters as transit, despite having well more than 6 times the mode share (meaning transit is attracting proportionally more and driving proportionally less). All commuters under 16 and likely under 18 would fall into any category *except* for driver, but of course we don't survey them. When you take into account the amount of money spent on drivers versus all other mode shares, it's not surprising to see these numbers.

(11-30-2017, 12:36 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: It's easy to dismiss cycling when you frame things in particular ways. There's been a roughly 0% increase in the proportion of driving commuters, but by Jeff's own quoted numbers, cycling commuters have gone from 1830 to 2600, a 42% increase. Driving attracted 47,895 new commuters while transit attracted 8,155, driving attracting a bit less than 6 times as many new commuters as transit, despite having well more than 6 times the mode share (meaning transit is attracting proportionally more and driving proportionally less). All commuters under 16 and likely under 18 would fall into any category *except* for driver, but of course we don't survey them. When you take into account the amount of money spent on drivers versus all other mode shares, it's not surprising to see these numbers.

(11-30-2017, 01:27 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(11-30-2017, 12:36 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: It's easy to dismiss cycling when you frame things in particular ways. There's been a roughly 0% increase in the proportion of driving commuters, but by Jeff's own quoted numbers, cycling commuters have gone from 1830 to 2600, a 42% increase. Driving attracted 47,895 new commuters while transit attracted 8,155, driving attracting a bit less than 6 times as many new commuters as transit, despite having well more than 6 times the mode share (meaning transit is attracting proportionally more and driving proportionally less). All commuters under 16 and likely under 18 would fall into any category *except* for driver, but of course we don't survey them. When you take into account the amount of money spent on drivers versus all other mode shares, it's not surprising to see these numbers.

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.

P.S. Regarding your money spent comment, you can argue that everyone drives because we spend the money. But conversely one can argue that we should spend the money because everyone (85% of people surveyed) drives. And transit does need those roads, too, as sometimes do bicyclists.  But anyway, this is not something I personally want to argue about.

(11-30-2017, 03:41 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(11-30-2017, 01:27 PM)tomh009 Wrote: 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.

(11-30-2017, 04:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote:

(11-30-2017, 03:41 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: ...
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.
....

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.

(11-30-2017, 04:33 PM)creative Wrote: When I was a student I walked, biked and rode transit because those were my only options. My parents did not drive me everywhere. When I graduated and started working I continued to walk, bike or transit everywhere because I could not afford to buy a car. As my life changed and I got married my responsibilities changed as well. Two people working on different schedules meant getting kids to and from daycare along with long work days meant that I didn't want to be sitting on a bus or riding a bike which would both more than double my commuting time. Time which I wanted to spend with my kids. As the kids got older and they became involved in sports as well as other activities, not to mention my wife's and my personal activities, time became a major factor. It was just not feasibly possible for our family to live our lives within the time available to us and use transit, cycling or walking to get to everywhere we needed/wanted to go. Now a days when I have more time on my hands I love to cycle and walk for exercise and pleasure. We will sometimes walk to the store to pick up one or two items. We never use transit because it is just not convenient for us. We live fairly central in Kitchener and can drive almost anywhere in KW in 10-15 minutes without having to stand at a bus stop in bad weather. Most of our trips by car involve stopping at multiple locations along our planned route. When my father was alive I also needed to drive him to apppuntments and grocery shopping because of mobility issues. Sorry for the long rambled on explanation. What I am trying to get at is that many people have busy and complicated lives that prevent them from using transit and cycling as a means of commuting and getting around. For those that are able to do so I commend you. As for cycling infrastructure it my not be perfect but it is way better than when I commuted by bike. There were limited bike trails in the suburbs and no such thing as bike lanes. It appears these days that I keep seeing more and more bike lanes. Is it perfect, no. Is it getting better, yes.

(11-30-2017, 04:50 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for a) yes, that's a big help, but I think you undervalue b) and c).   There are literally tens of thousands of trips which are a few hundred yards of missing bike infrastructure under the highway or other busy road away from being totally comfortable.

Further, I don't know if you bike or not, but the worst part of biking for me, is how I'm continually blamed for not following the laws, which are basically impossible to follow because the design has ignored cyclists. (...)

Certainly you bring up some very good points about trip end facilities, I have no problem finding secure bike parking at my work and previous workplaces, but even when I was going to school, I brought my bike into my office (against continual admin staff whining) because I didn't want to see it disappear.  There was no facility for end use.  Bike share would also certainly be easier (and apparently requires less political will).

When it comes right down too it though, I think end use facilities are a nice to have (I *can* lock my bike outside), but safe infra is a must, people won't cycle if they're made to feel unsafe.  But I might be wrong, certainly there are counter examples.