5 ms·

Do you have a citation for 50% of the SFMTA budget going to cycling infrastructure? This sounds demonstrably incorrect given the fact that they run the bus and

Do you have a citation for 50% of the SFMTA budget going to cycling infrastructure? This sounds demonstrably incorrect given the fact that they run the bus and LRV systems. (Also incorrect is that people "don't want to cycle to work", I see literally hundreds of them every morning in SF, and it's growing every year.) There are many arguments in favor of cycling infrastructure, but unfortunately I'm versed enough in anti-bike comment threads to recognize someone who won't be convinced :) But here goes... * bikes do less damage to road than cars, and therefore the maintenance cost of bike lanes is lower than car lanes, which require frequent paving * bikes are important as a "last mile" transportation option for public transit commuters. densely-placed bike share stations improve the feasibility of public transit for people whose homes or offices are 1-2 miles from a train station. * bikes are far smaller than cars and so you can push more traffic through a given width of road than with cars. this is especially relevant if you ever get to a downtown stretch where one car turning right at a pedestrian crossing causes an entire green light to be wasted on the rest of the cars (basically every light along Market Street in SF). cars are just wide and clumsy when driving in dense downtowns. * the government frequently subsidizes behaviors that are considered virtuous (or conversely, imposes "sin taxes"), and also subsidizes services that benefit lower-income citizens. both of those apply here. car parking in downtowns can run $40+ for a day. bike share and bus commutes are $2-5 and keep people active. I could go on, but again, I don't think your mind will be changed much.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
Your argument is based on a major logical fallacy. There’s lots of reasons why cycling is far better for society than driving cars. But none of them matter because people do not want to cycle. There are no cases in the world where cycling infrastructure has been successful in having a measurable impact on congestion. You’re also falling for the same fallacy that cycling advocates fall for by obscuring the impact of cycling spending. It doesn’t matter if hundreds of people want to cycle to work, or if cycling adoption is up 10% if all you’ve done is gone from 3% of commuters to 3.4% of commuters (which is where I believe SF is at after all of the billions they’ve invested in it). It’s the same as the startup that says they’re growing faster than google because they managed to go from 50 customers to 100. We all know it’s bullshit, it’s just a popular self-delusion that people enjoy.
- wjnqx 8y ago
  That's demonstrably false. Look to cities in northern Europe like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where bicycle use has caused a massive decrease in automobile traffic. Can you cite any of those figures?
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    Add Beijing to the list. However the success of cycling in those cities comes down entirely to geography. Cycling has been popular in those places for a very long time. They also prove that cycling adoption doesn’t come down to infrastructure spending, a city is either geographically suited to it (very flat with minimal sprawl), or it isn’t, no matter how much money you pour down the drain to build cycle ways.
    - jurip 8y ago
      Amsterdam hasn't been big on cycling for a "very long time". It was a very car heavy city for a while and is now on a better track thanks to changes in policy. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...
      - schrijver 8y ago
        As a Dutch person, it was great reading this, because I always assumed that the Netherlands had cycling ingrained in its culture. This would of course make the cycling success of Dutch cities hard to replicate elsewhere. To see that activism and political will played a large role in creating the current cycling climate makes me hopeful it can be replicated elsewhere!
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > But none of them matter because people do not want to cycle. Wrong. Vancouver, for example, built a network of protected bike lanes in a few years, and saw bike rates skyrocket. Bike commute mode share is now 10%, despite having much less than 10% of available road space, making bikes highly land-efficient. > There are no cases in the world where cycling infrastructure has been successful in having a measurable impact on congestion. That's because the number of cars increases to fill the amount of road space. But if you look at Amsterdam or Copenhagen, plenty of people are willing to bike when there's good bike lanes and paths for doing so. In contrast, cities like SF or Seattle have a bare handful of protected bike lanes, a smattering of walk/bike trails, and they hardly connect to each other. It's hardly a surprise that most people don't want to bike in those conditions. > which is where I believe SF is at after all of the billions they’ve invested in it If SF had spent "billions" the city would be covered in protected bike lanes. Needless to say, it isn't. This is a made-up figure.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

Your argument is based on a major logical fallacy. There’s lots of reasons why cycling is far better for society than driving cars. But none of them matter because people do not want to cycle. There are no cases in the world where cycling infrastructure has been successful in having a measurable impact on congestion. You’re also falling for the same fallacy that cycling advocates fall for by obscuring the impact of cycling spending. It doesn’t matter if hundreds of people want to cycle to work, or if cycling adoption is up 10% if all you’ve done is gone from 3% of commuters to 3.4% of commuters (which is where I believe SF is at after all of the billions they’ve invested in it). It’s the same as the startup that says they’re growing faster than google because they managed to go from 50 customers to 100. We all know it’s bullshit, it’s just a popular self-delusion that people enjoy.

wjnqx 8y ago
That's demonstrably false. Look to cities in northern Europe like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where bicycle use has caused a massive decrease in automobile traffic. Can you cite any of those figures?
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  Add Beijing to the list. However the success of cycling in those cities comes down entirely to geography. Cycling has been popular in those places for a very long time. They also prove that cycling adoption doesn’t come down to infrastructure spending, a city is either geographically suited to it (very flat with minimal sprawl), or it isn’t, no matter how much money you pour down the drain to build cycle ways.
  - jurip 8y ago
    Amsterdam hasn't been big on cycling for a "very long time". It was a very car heavy city for a while and is now on a better track thanks to changes in policy. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bicycle-capital-world-transport-cycling-kindermoord https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/05/amsterdam-bic...
    - schrijver 8y ago
      As a Dutch person, it was great reading this, because I always assumed that the Netherlands had cycling ingrained in its culture. This would of course make the cycling success of Dutch cities hard to replicate elsewhere. To see that activism and political will played a large role in creating the current cycling climate makes me hopeful it can be replicated elsewhere!
TulliusCicero 8y ago
> But none of them matter because people do not want to cycle. Wrong. Vancouver, for example, built a network of protected bike lanes in a few years, and saw bike rates skyrocket. Bike commute mode share is now 10%, despite having much less than 10% of available road space, making bikes highly land-efficient. > There are no cases in the world where cycling infrastructure has been successful in having a measurable impact on congestion. That's because the number of cars increases to fill the amount of road space. But if you look at Amsterdam or Copenhagen, plenty of people are willing to bike when there's good bike lanes and paths for doing so. In contrast, cities like SF or Seattle have a bare handful of protected bike lanes, a smattering of walk/bike trails, and they hardly connect to each other. It's hardly a surprise that most people don't want to bike in those conditions. > which is where I believe SF is at after all of the billions they’ve invested in it If SF had spent "billions" the city would be covered in protected bike lanes. Needless to say, it isn't. This is a made-up figure.