4 ms·

This is not about replacing cars with bikes, but making biking a viable alternative, such that it is actually possible to get from point A to point B by bike wi

by lambda 11y ago

This is not about replacing cars with bikes, but making biking a viable alternative, such that it is actually possible to get from point A to point B by bike without taking a substantial risk of being killed by substantially faster car traffic. No one actually expects to replace all cars with bikes. But replacing 20% of them would substantially cut down on congestion and emissions; and avoiding further growth in automotive traffic is likewise important. And yes, I do see parents taking their kids to school by bike; in fact, my father used to do it with my younger brother some 25 years ago, and just yesterday I passed one of my neighbors heading up our very steep hill with her child on the back of her cargo bike. There isn't a zero-sum game to be played between cars and bikes. Improving bike infrastructure can lead to reduced congestion for cars, fewer bad interactions between drivers and cyclists, etc.

superuser2 11y ago
>but making biking a viable alternative I think the (well-founded) concern is that this expenditure of political capital means mass transit may not get the attention it deserves. Public transit can be ridden by anyone; bicycles are only useful to the able-bodied.
- jkyle 11y ago
  Bikes also alleviate congestion on public transit and roads.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    That is situation-dependant. I have seen slow bikes cause backups on roads. I've also seen heavily-used bridge lanes turned into empty bike lanes. Even when fully used, the carrying capacity (people moved / time) of a bike lane can be far less than a lane dedicated to buses or even cars. (It depends on slope and traffic speed.)
    - jrock08 11y ago
      > That is situation-dependant. So let's do it where it makes sense > I have seen slow bikes cause backups on roads. Build bike lanes. > I've also seen heavily-used bridge lanes turned into empty bike lanes. Why didn't bikers feel safe on these lanes? Why weren't they used, or are they used, you just don't see it because you aren't looking during the right hours? > Even when fully used, the carrying capacity (people moved / time) of a bike lane can be far less than a lane dedicated to buses or even cars. (It depends on slope and traffic speed.) I've never been in a bike traffic jam, but I've been in more than my fair share of car traffic jams in high density areas. This is because cars take up more space per person than bikes, bikes are a very viable alternative to single person random access transport over short to medium distances while busses are not if the routes don't line up well. Obviously, for traveling 50 miles, there isn't a substitute for a car, but the point of this is to make urban areas bike and pedestrian friendly for the people that live in those areas, not necessarily to make it easier to drive through them. http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2nd-Ave-Gif-2.gif http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2n...
- npsimons 11y ago
  > bicycles are only useful to the able-bodied Maybe if they biked to and from work, they wouldn't be "disabled" (ie, burdened by fat). The truly disabled make up a miniscule portion of the population, and while accomodating them is important, encouraging more people to bike would solve not just societal problems, but personal health ones as well.
sandworm101 11y ago
> This is not about replacing cars with bikes, but making biking a viable alternative... That isn't the rhetoric from bikers in my neighbourhood. They actively campaign for the dismantlement of motorvehicle-related infrastructure. Whether it is turning car lanes into bike lanes, reducing available parking in new constructions, or new road taxes, their avowed goal seems to be to make driving more painful.
- jrock08 11y ago
  > dismantlement of motorvehicle-related infrastructure. Whether it is turning car lanes into bike lanes, Yes, it turns out we overbuilt streets and under-built bike infrastructure so now we have to reclaim some car lanes to create bike lanes instead. This is not the end of the world. > reducing available parking in new constructions Reducing the required parking in construction doesn't eliminate parking in new constructions if parking is actually important, it just allows the free market to actually price parking instead of forcing non-drivers to subsidize parking spots. > or new road taxes Are you talking about congestion pricing here? If so, you chose to drive in an area which doesn't have the throughput to handle the cars, and yes, you should have to pay a fair price to use the road. > their avowed goal seems to be to make driving more painful. No, the goal is to make biking safe and possible. Driving has too long been the default, so you look at every attempt to claw back some semblance of balance for bikers as an affront to your right to drive.
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    The infrastructure issue isn't so simple. In my local we are in a real estate boom. There are many groups claiming that cars will not be so prominent in the near future. That view is taken onboard by zoning people when deciding on new buildings. Rather than demand sufficient parking spots and upgrades to roads and mass transit, developers are allowed pretend that a large number of residents will bike to work. That means larger condo blocks with poorer connections, harming bikes, cars and transit. There are a few "green" office blocks around here without any parking spots. So employees park on the street, annoying local business who want those spots used by customers. This is similar to the "elder housing" theory that assumes that the old people buying the condos will not commute and so do not need parking or transit services. In fact, old people go to lots of appointments, have carers that don't live with them, and are often visited by large numbers of family members. It's just a scam by developers to squeeze more condos into a given space without upgrading infrastructure. For below: Try actually running a building without parking. Repair people drive vans full of tools. 24/7 employees need to get home at 2am after the bus system has stopped. Tenant businesses need deliveries. A city isn't going to reinvent itself overnight just to accommodate some architect's vision of bike utopia. I responded to a trouble call at one of these buildings ... to great laughter, I parked my motorcycle in the lobby. Art.

by lambda 11y ago

superuser2 11y ago

>but making biking a viable alternative I think the (well-founded) concern is that this expenditure of political capital means mass transit may not get the attention it deserves. Public transit can be ridden by anyone; bicycles are only useful to the able-bodied.

jkyle 11y ago
Bikes also alleviate congestion on public transit and roads.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  That is situation-dependant. I have seen slow bikes cause backups on roads. I've also seen heavily-used bridge lanes turned into empty bike lanes. Even when fully used, the carrying capacity (people moved / time) of a bike lane can be far less than a lane dedicated to buses or even cars. (It depends on slope and traffic speed.)
  - jrock08 11y ago
    > That is situation-dependant. So let's do it where it makes sense > I have seen slow bikes cause backups on roads. Build bike lanes. > I've also seen heavily-used bridge lanes turned into empty bike lanes. Why didn't bikers feel safe on these lanes? Why weren't they used, or are they used, you just don't see it because you aren't looking during the right hours? > Even when fully used, the carrying capacity (people moved / time) of a bike lane can be far less than a lane dedicated to buses or even cars. (It depends on slope and traffic speed.) I've never been in a bike traffic jam, but I've been in more than my fair share of car traffic jams in high density areas. This is because cars take up more space per person than bikes, bikes are a very viable alternative to single person random access transport over short to medium distances while busses are not if the routes don't line up well. Obviously, for traveling 50 miles, there isn't a substitute for a car, but the point of this is to make urban areas bike and pedestrian friendly for the people that live in those areas, not necessarily to make it easier to drive through them. http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2nd-Ave-Gif-2.gif http://www.seattlebikeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2n...
npsimons 11y ago
> bicycles are only useful to the able-bodied Maybe if they biked to and from work, they wouldn't be "disabled" (ie, burdened by fat). The truly disabled make up a miniscule portion of the population, and while accomodating them is important, encouraging more people to bike would solve not just societal problems, but personal health ones as well.

sandworm101 11y ago

> This is not about replacing cars with bikes, but making biking a viable alternative... That isn't the rhetoric from bikers in my neighbourhood. They actively campaign for the dismantlement of motorvehicle-related infrastructure. Whether it is turning car lanes into bike lanes, reducing available parking in new constructions, or new road taxes, their avowed goal seems to be to make driving more painful.

jrock08 11y ago
> dismantlement of motorvehicle-related infrastructure. Whether it is turning car lanes into bike lanes, Yes, it turns out we overbuilt streets and under-built bike infrastructure so now we have to reclaim some car lanes to create bike lanes instead. This is not the end of the world. > reducing available parking in new constructions Reducing the required parking in construction doesn't eliminate parking in new constructions if parking is actually important, it just allows the free market to actually price parking instead of forcing non-drivers to subsidize parking spots. > or new road taxes Are you talking about congestion pricing here? If so, you chose to drive in an area which doesn't have the throughput to handle the cars, and yes, you should have to pay a fair price to use the road. > their avowed goal seems to be to make driving more painful. No, the goal is to make biking safe and possible. Driving has too long been the default, so you look at every attempt to claw back some semblance of balance for bikers as an affront to your right to drive.
- sandworm101 11y ago
  The infrastructure issue isn't so simple. In my local we are in a real estate boom. There are many groups claiming that cars will not be so prominent in the near future. That view is taken onboard by zoning people when deciding on new buildings. Rather than demand sufficient parking spots and upgrades to roads and mass transit, developers are allowed pretend that a large number of residents will bike to work. That means larger condo blocks with poorer connections, harming bikes, cars and transit. There are a few "green" office blocks around here without any parking spots. So employees park on the street, annoying local business who want those spots used by customers. This is similar to the "elder housing" theory that assumes that the old people buying the condos will not commute and so do not need parking or transit services. In fact, old people go to lots of appointments, have carers that don't live with them, and are often visited by large numbers of family members. It's just a scam by developers to squeeze more condos into a given space without upgrading infrastructure. For below: Try actually running a building without parking. Repair people drive vans full of tools. 24/7 employees need to get home at 2am after the bus system has stopped. Tenant businesses need deliveries. A city isn't going to reinvent itself overnight just to accommodate some architect's vision of bike utopia. I responded to a trouble call at one of these buildings ... to great laughter, I parked my motorcycle in the lobby. Art.