Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
You're dealing with two different groups. One group is the urbanist market for whom most daily activities take place in the central city, and for whom alternative transportation is increasingly more convenient than driving for all trips (as opposed to just commute trips). Then there's the second group, which is the suburban market for whom access to transit for commuting purposes is the leading utility for bikes.
The suburban group is probably larger currently, but it's also much more spread out. While the total number of cyclists accessing suburban park and rides may be greater than the total number of cyclists in the central city, the number of cyclists accessing any one particular park and ride will generally be lower than the number using any particular downtown facility.
|
While I believe that the central city bike friendliness is very important in the sense that new residential construction and renovation can and does use the sales pitch, the key IMO is to consider how the cities are going to implode and plan bicycling around that implosion.
Cities are NOT going to totally change in 5, 10, or even 20 years into highly dense nexuses surrounding by abandoned suburbs. Instead, IMO, cities will evolve into high and low income densely peopled nodes, multifamilies living in former suburban houses the smaller house footprint houses varying from single family near public transportation to slums away from public transportation. But this will be gradual as no central city (including NYC) would be capable of absorbing more than 10 or 20% of the suburban and exurban fringes for many years.
Consequently, the key in my mind is to make bicycling to transportation stations the top priority, and, more importantly, in future rail and park'n'ride developments make human powered transportation road approaches central to the design. IMO, in Denver, only the Evans, Oxford, Littleton, Osage, and University of Denver Stations meet that criteria now.*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
Also, when bikesharing is brought into mix as a downtown circulator that those suburban PnR riders can use on the destination end of their commute, then the situation is that downtown is getting riders from both groups, which makes it quite clear that downtown is where the first investments should be made.
One final point in regards to park and ride commuting: In the same way that transit is most useful where it supports smart growth-friendly changes to land use, cycling is also most useful where it supports car-light urban living. I don't deny the utility of suburban access to transit cycling, but at the same time, I'd much rather pour limited resources into making the inner city work as a bona fide urban place. The ceiling for what we might someday get out of bikes is much higher in the core than the suburbs. So while I agree completely that we need good access to suburban transit nodes, I see that as a lower priority than getting the central city in order.
|
IMO, you are looking at the diametric opposite of what would be best for long term lower car use metro wide. And, to me, with the crushing economic changes enroute, think about getting more people, more easily, and more cheaper to suburban spokes would be the best use of money.
First, if you make it easy for more and more people to go downtown at a lower price to those people, the jobs will follow them. The jobs downtown are what would provide the increased tax base to put in bike infrastructure, and getting those jobs would be greatly aided by widening the ease of bicycle commuting to more steel rail and bus park'n'rides.
While parks, walking trails, etc., add to the ambience of a downtown, the great business downtowns world wide reflect the commuting population that surrounds them.
If you make the commute easier from the suburbs, less people will take their cars downtown. It is simple as that (I give Fastrack about C- on that score)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus
This is absolutely not true. Most people are not dogmatic about transportation; they use whatever forms are most convenient. Right now, in most of America and most of Colorado, cars are the most convenient. But that is not an inherent trait of cars, it's merely a reflection of our built environment. As central Denver becomes more urban, the convenience of cars in relation to other modes will change. Cars will get gradually less convenient and other modes, including cycling, will become more so.
It's true that some people will choose urban living because of the cost of oil, but lots of people will also choose it for other reasons, and those people will increasingly find cycling easier than driving for many trips.
Also, I don't know how you define "young people" (under 20? 30? 40?), but I do not accept the line of thinking that suggests only middle-aged married people with children matter. The demographics of our country are not the same in 2011 as they were in 1950. "Young people" make up an absolutely huge portion of our population. We should not ignore them.
|
You and I, and a large percentage of those in this forum are intellectuals. And, what you are saying is true of intellectuals. But transportation dynamics in big cities reflect the needs of the masses. Freeway construction, for example, has always been criticized by a small group of thinkers. In addition, as youth is always youth, young people will do what it takes for them to get to know one another. But, for the majority, whatever their inclination when young, this wears off.
*The West line, due to much of it's route being through fairly dense housing will have the best potential for bicycle commuting to light rail stations
Prev
Linear Mode
