bragi

I just finished reading Eben Weiss's new book, Bike Snob Abroad. He describes the transportation bicycling situation in the US, particularly in New York, and then compares it to his (admittedly brief) experiences in Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK and Italy. He's pretty witty and passionate at times, and I mostly enjoyed the book, but the conclusion gave me pause: it seemed a bit rushed, as if he really needed to make his deadline, and his final thesis, that bicycling for transportation in the West is pretty much inevitable at this point, even in the US, is not something that I would take for granted just yet. Yes, it's popular in some US urban areas, but I think it's too early to tell if this is just another short-lived bicycle boom, or if this one will "take" as it has in some parts of Europe. (Weiss does mention that the success of bicycling in the Netherlands and Sweden is largely the result of public policy, but doesn't develop this topic as much as I'd hoped.) I think it's telling that there's been such bitter (if silly) resistance to his own city's new bike share program. I ride everywhere myself, and find it to be at least as convenient as driving and far better for my mental and physical health, but I have a really hard time believing that the citizens of Houston and Atlanta are secretly pining for bike lanes. I think we've built the car-centered, sometimes inhuman infrastructure we have because that's what most people on this continent actually wanted, God help us.

Roody

When cars took over, in the early 1900s, people didn't want them at first because they were stuck on their horses, trains and bicycles. There were laws that made it difficult for people to drive. For example, there were laws that required a man with a lantern to walk ahead of autos after dark. Early motorists banded together into advocacy groups (like AAA) to promote motoring. For most early adopters, driving was a hobby or sport rather than practical transportation. It took time and effort for the pioneering motorists to win acceptance.

I don't know how much you want to read into this "history lesson." History doesn't actually repeat itself, but sometimes there are recurring patterns.

gerv 

Bragi, there are a couple of reasons why he might be right:
1. If there is ever a blip in the petroleum supply, the bicycle will be about the only method of transportation that can handle the sprawl of US cities. You can't walk 10 miles to work. Each significant rise in the price of gasoline seems to encourage more and more people to ride instead of drive.
2. City planners are trying to prepare for the likely densification of their domains. As more and more people seek to live lost to city centers, there are fewer and fewer ways you can accommodate both cars and people. Of course, public transit might work, but bicycles are clearly there too.
3. Large segments of the population in North American have been relegated to "second class" status. Particularly the young, but probably also older people. Many college grads can't afford to pay student and car loans on $12 an hour. Hence, the bicycle...

But ...most important... you've just said it yourself... "I ride everywhere myself, and find it to be at least as convenient as driving and far better for my mental and physical health...".

When this becomes public knowledge...

Roody

https://www.streetsblog.org/2013/05/2...y/#more-304062

Streetsblog passed along some scientific evidence for the idea that public support for a new project will often often be lowest right at the inception of the project. Usually support will increase after the project is well under way. This was an analysis of congestion pricing, but it probably also applies to new bike lanes, bike shares, etc.