4 ms·

It’s not all about throughput. Taking away car lanes in favor of bike lanes usually takes away parking as well. While that certainly has the desired effect of

It’s not all about throughput. Taking away car lanes in favor of bike lanes usually takes away parking as well. While that certainly has the desired effect of reducing car traffic to the area, it also increases the difficulty and expense of travel to the area. We’re seeing this in Oakland now, where they’re putting in bike lanes and taking away parking, while simultaneously doing nothing about the limited public transportation system. If you want to reduce vehicle traffic without seriously impacting the shops and restaurants in the area, you have to use both knobs available to increase people’s use of public transportation: make it harder and more expensive to drive a car, while also making it easier (and, preferably, cheaper as well) to take transit. One without the other is a disaster.

Karrot_Kream 7y ago
I mean, or you can ride a bike in these new bike lanes in one of the flattest and temperate climates in the US? Oakland is littered with cars along roads in every neighborhood you go on, and the police barely enforce anything resembling traffic code (due partially to complicated historical reasons). In some neighborhoods, I've seen duplexes with more land area in cars than living space (so is it a wonder that poorer people here live in their cars when it's so easy to own and park a car?) A bike lane or two makes it cheaper for most folks (yes including the folks living in the pop-up Oakland housing shelters, they own a lot of bikes) to safely move around, and reduces traffic from our generally saturated roads. Given the limited paving budget here (and how tectonically active the hills are), it's a wonder that bike infra has taken so long. Moreover, the heavy private vehicular traffic in the area makes it very difficult for buses to navigate their routes in a timely manner, and taking parking off the road for bike lanes and BRT is a much cheaper way of enabling transit in the area that laying down rail.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Sure, you can ride a bike. Now, tell me how you would transport groceries for a family of 4, or how you transport the kids to doctor's appointments, for instance. What about people who physically can't ride a bike? What if I'm coming from 15 miles away?
  - benjymo 7y ago
    I don't think the argument was to remove all car lanes and replace them with bike lanes.
  - jasonmp85 7y ago
    (A) Use panniers (B) Use a trailer the kids can ride in (C) Don’t use a bike for a 15mi commute. Better still, don’t do things 15mi away. That’s so damn far what the hell
  - Karrot_Kream 7y ago
    Surely as someone from the area you've seen the countless folks with cargo bikes transporting their kids? I live 1.5 mi. away from my grocery and I take panniers and shop for a family of 2 (though I understand that kids need a lot more things than adults do, so this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison). And if you're coming from 15 mi. away, you're a guest, not a resident, so either take transit and a bike share or circle the block for parking. I don't demand a house in your yard, and neither should you demand a parking spot in mine. Also, what about the folks that physically can't drive a car but can ride a bike, or the folks with poor reflexes or vision that should not be allowed to drive and yet are given a pass in the US because it's so driving centric?

Karrot_Kream 7y ago

I mean, or you can ride a bike in these new bike lanes in one of the flattest and temperate climates in the US? Oakland is littered with cars along roads in every neighborhood you go on, and the police barely enforce anything resembling traffic code (due partially to complicated historical reasons). In some neighborhoods, I've seen duplexes with more land area in cars than living space (so is it a wonder that poorer people here live in their cars when it's so easy to own and park a car?) A bike lane or two makes it cheaper for most folks (yes including the folks living in the pop-up Oakland housing shelters, they own a lot of bikes) to safely move around, and reduces traffic from our generally saturated roads. Given the limited paving budget here (and how tectonically active the hills are), it's a wonder that bike infra has taken so long. Moreover, the heavy private vehicular traffic in the area makes it very difficult for buses to navigate their routes in a timely manner, and taking parking off the road for bike lanes and BRT is a much cheaper way of enabling transit in the area that laying down rail.

pmiller2 7y ago
Sure, you can ride a bike. Now, tell me how you would transport groceries for a family of 4, or how you transport the kids to doctor's appointments, for instance. What about people who physically can't ride a bike? What if I'm coming from 15 miles away?
- benjymo 7y ago
  I don't think the argument was to remove all car lanes and replace them with bike lanes.
- jasonmp85 7y ago
  (A) Use panniers (B) Use a trailer the kids can ride in (C) Don’t use a bike for a 15mi commute. Better still, don’t do things 15mi away. That’s so damn far what the hell
- Karrot_Kream 7y ago
  Surely as someone from the area you've seen the countless folks with cargo bikes transporting their kids? I live 1.5 mi. away from my grocery and I take panniers and shop for a family of 2 (though I understand that kids need a lot more things than adults do, so this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison). And if you're coming from 15 mi. away, you're a guest, not a resident, so either take transit and a bike share or circle the block for parking. I don't demand a house in your yard, and neither should you demand a parking spot in mine. Also, what about the folks that physically can't drive a car but can ride a bike, or the folks with poor reflexes or vision that should not be allowed to drive and yet are given a pass in the US because it's so driving centric?