4 ms·
Ok, I think I'm seeing where you are coming from. Vehicular Cycling and the approach of having bikes share the space with other road vehicles is something that
by awjr 9y ago
Ok, I think I'm seeing where you are coming from. Vehicular Cycling and the approach of having bikes share the space with other road vehicles is something that has now been pretty much debunked as a way of developing mass cycling.
The evidence is out there. London has had a 60%+ increase in the last couple of years on routes with protected cycle infrastructure.
'Normal' people need visible safety. In fact New York City has found that protected cycle lanes (tracks) also reduce pedestrian injuries. https://www.fastcompany.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected-bike-lanes-have-actually-sped-up-its-car-traffic https://www.fastcompany.com/3035580/new-york-citys-protected...
Your final paragraph is also the problem. You are pretty much saying that the road system cannot be compromised to enable people to have the choice to walk and cycle if driving is in some way compromised. You want to get more people out of cars you need to provide good safe alternatives.
I really would ask you to stop thinking only in terms of yourself and what you would do on your roads. The US has cities/towns where there are high levels of cycling. They all have one thing in common. Segregation.
Remember though that cities are not investing in cycling because it is healthy. They are doing it as it solved congestion. A single 12ft lane can carry 2000 cars or 14,000 bikes or 19,000 pedestrians. Removing one lane or reducing lane width, known as a road diet, and installing cycle lanes can increase road capacity by the equivalent of adding 7 car lanes. It is logical to do this.
- closeparen 9y agoI don't deny that some people believe they can't ride without protected lanes the whole way. But this belief is the problem. The whole beauty of cycling is cheap, lightweight, simple machines with a tiny footprint on existing infrastructure (or no infrastructure at all). If you have the budget and political capital to do a massive infrastructure project like protected bike lanes on all blocks of all roads, then BRT or light rail are probably better uses of that capital. Right now, bicycling is in this catastrophic failure mode where people believe it requires a massive infrastructure project, but accomplishing that infrastructure project is no more tenable than blanketing a city in rail. >You want to get more people out of cars you need to provide good safe alternatives. Yes! And if we are going to do a massive infrastructure project and shrink roadways to provide alternatives, we should get the best bang for our buck possible. I remain highly skeptical that bike lanes are it. (In temperate cities, where ebikes are allowed, maybe).
- awjr 9y agoI think the idea that people 'believe' that segregated cycle lanes are needed vs the last 30+ years of promoting Vehicular Cycling with little to no growth in cycling, and achieving double digit yearly growth once they started building segregated cycle lanes shows that it is an evidence based solution. Cycling is consistently the fastest way to get from A to B in a city. Cycle infra makes other traffic faster and protects pedestrians. The economic benefits are huge as well and proven. So I still do not understand why you think the idea that given a choice, investing in BRT is a better solution.