6 ms·

What major investment would be required from the city or developers to set up cycling infrastructure? Painting some cycle lanes onto the roads? Marking a few ca

What major investment would be required from the city or developers to set up cycling infrastructure? Painting some cycle lanes onto the roads? Marking a few car parking places as bike parking places? That's all that cycling infrastructure really is, so it's super cheap. A lot cheaper than, say, building charging stations for electric cars.

amwelles 5y ago
Something tells me there’s a lot more to it than that.
kalenx 5y ago
Setting up a cycle lane in place is cheap, but not easy (at least in North America, people will always complain about the "war on cars"). Also, setting up a good cycle lane can be more expensive than you think. If you have a nice bike lane that spreads over 5 km but there's a 200 meters gap in it because of a bridge which was too narrow to keep the bike path, then you don't have a nice lane at all.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I've never understood why bicyclists can't just use the sidewalk for most of the commute. I get that it becomes impractical in dense areas where people are actually walking but most of the roads I travel along have vacant sidewalks.
  - EdwinLarkin 5y ago
    Depends how walkable the city is.The more walkable it is the more people you will see on the sidewalk.Sidewalks are for pedestrians not for fast moving vehicles.
  - jtdev 5y ago
    You know how many in the cycling movement view automobiles as being fast, dangerous, machines clogging up the roads? Many pedestrians view cyclists as a similar fast, dangerous (often rude and inconsiderate) presence on the sidewalk.
  - dmm 5y ago
    The most dangerous part of a sidewalk for a cyclist are places where they intersect roads. Drivers just aren't expecting sidewalk users moving at bike speeds. Some areas have long stretches of sidewalk without intersections those are fine for cycling assuming they have little pedestrian traffic or are wide enough to pass safely.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      This is pretty much my conception of when cyclists should be using the sidewalk instead.
      - dmm 5y ago
        Another thing to consider is that in many areas it's not legal for cyclists to use the sidewalk. Most sidewalks aren't appropriate for cycling. The exceptions I was describing are mostly found in big commercial developments, target, walmart, etc. Around me they tend to build wide sidewalks, well separated from the busy road. Here's an example: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9146941,-92.3196647,117m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9146941,-92.3196647,117m/dat... But most sidewalks aren't like that they are crossed regularly with driveways and end at a road every block. Every driveway is dangerous because drivers just don't look for people moving at bike speeds(2-3x faster than a pedestrian) on sidewalks. I personally know two people hit while cycling on a sidewalk because somebody pulled into a driveway and didn't see them. Imagine you're a cyclist, on the sidewalk, trying to cross a four-way stop. If you cross at the sidewalk, you're at extreme danger of being hit by a car making a right turn. This is called a right-hook. The road infrastructure in the US was built without consideration for bikes and so it's really annoying to many drivers when cyclists use roads but that doesn't mean the right place for cyclists is on the sidewalk.
        souprock 5y ago
        OK, I'll imagine I'm a cyclist, trying to cross a four-way stop. When I was a teen, I used to do exactly that, riding my 10-speed on the sidewalk. This is how it goes: Approach the intersection, coasting and then braking. Come to a stop, with feet on the ground. Optionally, dismount. Wait for a big gap in the stream of cars. Walk or ride across the intersection, remounting as necessary, and then continue on riding. I'm not seeing the extreme danger here. It's not possible for a car to make a right turn because there isn't any car. The cyclist doesn't cross until the cars are gone. Urban adjustment: there might be a "walk button", and there is a chance that it is actually connected to a traffic signal. Cross only with the walk indicator active. I don't see any reason why this should be illegal. It's far safer than the alternatives.
  - vinay427 5y ago
    Assuming we're not talking about the extra-wide sidewalks common in city centers which sometimes also host designated bike lanes, ordinary sidewalks that I've seen throughout the US and Europe are nowhere near wide enough to fit even a single cyclist passing alongside a pedestrian without a risk of collision. Add multiple pedestrians walking alongside each other, other hazards such as parked cars, less competent cyclists such as children, or pets (on or off leashes) and it quickly becomes a recipe for disaster for one or both of the sidewalk users. Also, bicyclists in cities tend to travel closer to the speeds of cars than pedestrians, and tend to have more similar dynamics such as turning radius and stopping distance which infrastructure for cars is already designed around. Additionally, car drivers are licensed and there is an expectation of awareness that they must exhibit. This makes it far easier to place slower-moving "hazards" in their path than adding faster-moving vehicles in the path of pedestrians.
  - stfp 5y ago
    You should try it?
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      I used to do this all the time growing up. But I assume times have changed because it's illegal now.
  - estebank 5y ago
    On top of everything else mentioned in the sibling comments, riding on the sidewalk is illegal in many locales. https://www.sallymorinlaw.com/bicycle-accidents/riding-your-bike-on-the-sidewalk-even-when-it-seems-safer-in-san-francisco-is-not-legal/ https://www.sallymorinlaw.com/bicycle-accidents/riding-your-...
  - acrispino 5y ago
    In some places it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk. Also, the width and amount of obstructions on sidewalks varies widely.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Cars and bikes mix better than bikes and walkers. Which is to say not very well. Walkers move in unpredictable ways and freeze when a bike is heading at them. Bikes move more like cars - they get a bit better handling, and are not as fast, but overall they act like cars. I wouldn't want to bike when there are many cars in the same lane as me, but it is still safer than biking on sidewalks where are many pedestrians.
  - dfgdghdf 5y ago
    * It's illegal in most countries * It tends to be busy with pedestrians (not everywhere, as you mention) * It's not safe when crossing side-roads * It's inefficient if you walk at junctions
  - obmelvin 5y ago
    Riding on the sidewalk is dangerous. Cars do not look for you when moving between the street and a parking lot/driveway/etc. I have had more close calls with cars riding on at most 10 miles of sidewalk (and that's being generous to be honest) in the past decade than with ~6000mi riding in the road.
jedberg 5y ago
Building offices and commercial buildings closer to homes. Most cities are not bikeable because it's just too far to get to anything that isn't a home.
ericd 5y ago
A very large percentage of the population are uncomfortable biking when there’s only a line of paint between them and automobiles. Separated bike lanes (ideally with physical barriers) increase the percentage of the population that will be willing to bike very considerably. If biking is going to make a major impact, we need that level of infrastructure change on at least some set of major thoroughfares in cities.
unethical_ban 5y ago
There is so much more to cycling safety than this. Many roads don't have shoulders, or don't have the width for dedicated bike lanes. Drivers are often very hostile to bike riders who take up car lanes, esp. if the bikes go under the speed limit and if the cars have to wait at all. Blindspots. Intersections. Parallel parking/parking in bike lanes. Safe and clean parking of bikes at destinations. The entire design and build requirements of roads have to be reconsidered to make cycling/scooters first class citizens in cities. As it stands in the US, most cities are pretty dangerous for cyclists.
Steltek 5y ago
From personal experience in town meetings: * City roads are narrow and don't have empty space just waiting to be painted green. Bike lanes will cost you parking spots or a car travel lane. This gets huge pushback. * Dangerous drivers must be removed from roads. You can be hit, killed even, with video evidence and the driver may escape punishment entirely. * Cities (or specifically NIMBY residents) must stop resisting increased density, mixed use, and useless parking minimums. Not everyone wants to live in a suburban development, miles from useful amenities. * Bikes and alternative transportation are compliments and need to be developed together. Biking to transit hubs is huge. It's not just green paint wherever it fits.
- Packofbezens 5y ago
  Dangerous <everything> must be removed from roads. There is a non-negligible amount of bikers skipping red lights, or using the sidewalk (forbidden in many cities), or even going the opposite way on one-way streets. The rationale in most cases is that a bike is not a motor vehicle and thus should not observe the same rules. This is a problem even in a scenario without cars, as it leads to collision vs. other bicyclists or pedestrians. This behaviour from a few individuals pushes anti-bikers to protest even more, making it harder for these initiatives to thrive. As ridiculous as it sounds, a deterrent similar to a license plate may become a necessity.
  - Steltek 5y ago
    Not to say that behavior is okay but you're comparing apples and oranges. Drivers kill tens of thousands of people a year. Bikes are responsible for <1 person a year on average. People citing misbehavior by some cyclists need to get some perspective. Meanwhile, the driver who hit me (in a bike lane) defended himself to the cop by saying "it's hard to not hit bikers". He was not even given a warning. I had video evidence from a helmetcam.
    - rtlfe 5y ago
      > you're comparing apples and oranges More like comparing apples and shotguns.
bko 5y ago
$12 million a mile: Here’s how bike-lane costs shot sky high in Seattle The larger and more ambitious the project the greater the costs. I imagine a massive upgrade would be even more expensive https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/12-million-a-mile-heres-how-bike-lane-costs-shot-sky-high-in-seattle/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/12-...
- soperj 5y ago
  Considering what is spent on roads, like for instance, an overpass, is that even very much?
- gowld 5y ago
  Most of that cost was for preserving driving lanes while adding bike lanes. It could just as well be called the cost of car lanes.
jeanaimarre 5y ago
Things like protected bike lanes and bike only routes are essential if you want mass adoption. They cost more than paint and require political leadership that is currently lacking.
cabernal 5y ago
The trick is to get drivers to follow those markings. Where I live I see cars/trucks regularly park on bike lanes with little repercussion. Add to that a hostility between drivers and cyclists sharing the road; this might just be an issue where I live (Toronto) Cycling lane poles would be ideal, but a lot of drivers push back on this since they see it as precious space being taken away from them.
- estebank 5y ago
  In places where adequate protection was added, in some cases it was removed because drivers couldn't keep from leaving their lane. I guess drivers getting into accidents on their own is worse than lethal accidents involving cyclists on a bike lane. https://liveboston617.org/2020/12/16/dangerous-bike-lane-dividers-finally-dismantled-after-causing-multiple-roll-overs/ https://liveboston617.org/2020/12/16/dangerous-bike-lane-div...
- zip1234 5y ago
  It is space taken away from drivers, but drivers will treat a painted bike line as more space for a car. This is why the only safe bike lanes on a road with cars are ones that have physical protection from cars.
garyrichardson 5y ago
I live on the west coast in Canada. We have lots of bike lines. It's 30KM of them up and down multiple hills (most people would consider mountains) for me to get to work. Realistically, you've got to convince me to leave my 3000+sqft house (with bedrooms for all my kids) and yard to move to a 1000sqft apartment in the city (and make my kids share a room) and take on a bigger mortgage so that I'm closer to work. Also how do I get groceries for a family of 5 home on my bike? Life for the majority of people where I live has not been set up to be bicycle friendly and bike lanes don't change that barrier.
- kubariet 5y ago
  A more realistic proposal is making your neighborhood slightly denser and more pedestrian/bike/transit friendly. Most of the neighborhood can remain single family homes, but a central area should be slightly denser (3ish story buildings with retail on the bottom floor and residential apartments above). Your major transportation needs can now avoid cars in the following ways: 1. This central area should have a connection to a frequent public transit option which can get you to your job. BRT would be the easiest to roll out, but the ideal for most people would probably be some sort of medium/commuter rail with decent WiFi onboard and enough seating/frequent enough trains so that the average commuter can sit and work if they'd like. Obviously this won't take everyone out of their car, but the majority of commuters in your neighborhood could use this instead since it would be faster and more convenient. Ideally there would be trains/buses running at least every 10 minutes. 2. Because there is a retail area close to your residence you can realistically walk/bike to get groceries and do routine errands. Bike paths in your residential neighborhood make this easier because they feel (and are) much safer for everyday people to use instead of sharing streets with cars. Ideally the paths are safe enough for you to feel comfortable with your elderly relatives or children biking on them. This is obviously very different from how North American suburbs are set up today and would require a large amount of investment and changes in the way that we do public policy and planning. However, it is certainly possible to have suburbs that are bike/pedestrian friendly if you put the infrastructure in place to do so.
  - garyrichardson 5y ago
saiya-jin 5y ago
Often in old European cities there is no space to take away from, unless you cut from pedestrian side, or rebuild whole block to have wider gap. Or you completely remove that single one way lane, and good bye resupplies for the shops/restaurants and good luck to those poor folks that will move in/away. The bigger the city, usually the older it is, and center looks like this - tons of single lane one-ways. US roads always stroke me as super wide and at least those I saw myself had plenty of space for this. One example to illustrate the difference - on say Swiss or French car parks, if you park perfectly in the center of the parking spot and if cars around you do the same, even with regular car (say BMW 3 series) you can't just open the door fully, often not even that half-open position in the middle. Significantly wider cars effectively take 2 spaces, but then again not many folks buy them here also for this reason.
- soperj 5y ago
  In the Netherlands they turn those single one way lanes into bike first streets.
- occz 5y ago
  >Or you completely remove that single one way lane, and good bye resupplies for the shops/restaurants and good luck to those poor folks that will move in/away. This is not true - we have streets that have been converted to be fully pedestrian+bicycle, and resupplies/moving in is not really an issue because these vehicles get exceptions. The sign combination 'Motor traffic forbidden / Exception for authorized vehicles' is pretty damn common in my European city.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
That's crappy infrastructure that's effectively inaccessible to most. Good biking infrastructure is physically segregated infrastructure, which is less trivial to build (though still way cheaper and easier than infrastructure for cars).
zucker42 5y ago
If you want a good impression of the type of shift that it's going to take to make U.S. streets more bike friendly, you can watch the great YouTube channel NotJustBikes, which overviews some of way the Netherlands' infrastructure is built from the ground up to be not car dependent. While the investment required to build physical bike infrastructure is small compared to other infrastructure projects, building cities for bikes requires overcoming political opposition and indifference, rethinking zoning laws and other harmful, bureaucratic rules and slowly reshaping cities to not rely on cars. It's not simply a matter of chucking a line of paint on a 35 mph road and then complaining when cyclists don't use it.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
My town painted a few lanes. Bike deaths didn't change. Bike ridership didn't increase. Paint doesn't do squat for making car lanes safe for bikes.

amwelles 5y ago

Something tells me there’s a lot more to it than that.

kalenx 5y ago

Setting up a cycle lane in place is cheap, but not easy (at least in North America, people will always complain about the "war on cars"). Also, setting up a good cycle lane can be more expensive than you think. If you have a nice bike lane that spreads over 5 km but there's a 200 meters gap in it because of a bridge which was too narrow to keep the bike path, then you don't have a nice lane at all.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
I've never understood why bicyclists can't just use the sidewalk for most of the commute. I get that it becomes impractical in dense areas where people are actually walking but most of the roads I travel along have vacant sidewalks.
- EdwinLarkin 5y ago
  Depends how walkable the city is.The more walkable it is the more people you will see on the sidewalk.Sidewalks are for pedestrians not for fast moving vehicles.
- jtdev 5y ago
  You know how many in the cycling movement view automobiles as being fast, dangerous, machines clogging up the roads? Many pedestrians view cyclists as a similar fast, dangerous (often rude and inconsiderate) presence on the sidewalk.
- dmm 5y ago
  The most dangerous part of a sidewalk for a cyclist are places where they intersect roads. Drivers just aren't expecting sidewalk users moving at bike speeds. Some areas have long stretches of sidewalk without intersections those are fine for cycling assuming they have little pedestrian traffic or are wide enough to pass safely.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    This is pretty much my conception of when cyclists should be using the sidewalk instead.
    - dmm 5y ago
      Another thing to consider is that in many areas it's not legal for cyclists to use the sidewalk. Most sidewalks aren't appropriate for cycling. The exceptions I was describing are mostly found in big commercial developments, target, walmart, etc. Around me they tend to build wide sidewalks, well separated from the busy road. Here's an example: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9146941,-92.3196647,117m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9146941,-92.3196647,117m/dat... But most sidewalks aren't like that they are crossed regularly with driveways and end at a road every block. Every driveway is dangerous because drivers just don't look for people moving at bike speeds(2-3x faster than a pedestrian) on sidewalks. I personally know two people hit while cycling on a sidewalk because somebody pulled into a driveway and didn't see them. Imagine you're a cyclist, on the sidewalk, trying to cross a four-way stop. If you cross at the sidewalk, you're at extreme danger of being hit by a car making a right turn. This is called a right-hook. The road infrastructure in the US was built without consideration for bikes and so it's really annoying to many drivers when cyclists use roads but that doesn't mean the right place for cyclists is on the sidewalk.
      - souprock 5y ago
        OK, I'll imagine I'm a cyclist, trying to cross a four-way stop. When I was a teen, I used to do exactly that, riding my 10-speed on the sidewalk. This is how it goes: Approach the intersection, coasting and then braking. Come to a stop, with feet on the ground. Optionally, dismount. Wait for a big gap in the stream of cars. Walk or ride across the intersection, remounting as necessary, and then continue on riding. I'm not seeing the extreme danger here. It's not possible for a car to make a right turn because there isn't any car. The cyclist doesn't cross until the cars are gone. Urban adjustment: there might be a "walk button", and there is a chance that it is actually connected to a traffic signal. Cross only with the walk indicator active. I don't see any reason why this should be illegal. It's far safer than the alternatives.
- vinay427 5y ago
  Assuming we're not talking about the extra-wide sidewalks common in city centers which sometimes also host designated bike lanes, ordinary sidewalks that I've seen throughout the US and Europe are nowhere near wide enough to fit even a single cyclist passing alongside a pedestrian without a risk of collision. Add multiple pedestrians walking alongside each other, other hazards such as parked cars, less competent cyclists such as children, or pets (on or off leashes) and it quickly becomes a recipe for disaster for one or both of the sidewalk users. Also, bicyclists in cities tend to travel closer to the speeds of cars than pedestrians, and tend to have more similar dynamics such as turning radius and stopping distance which infrastructure for cars is already designed around. Additionally, car drivers are licensed and there is an expectation of awareness that they must exhibit. This makes it far easier to place slower-moving "hazards" in their path than adding faster-moving vehicles in the path of pedestrians.
- stfp 5y ago
  You should try it?
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I used to do this all the time growing up. But I assume times have changed because it's illegal now.
- estebank 5y ago
  On top of everything else mentioned in the sibling comments, riding on the sidewalk is illegal in many locales. https://www.sallymorinlaw.com/bicycle-accidents/riding-your-bike-on-the-sidewalk-even-when-it-seems-safer-in-san-francisco-is-not-legal/ https://www.sallymorinlaw.com/bicycle-accidents/riding-your-...
- acrispino 5y ago
  In some places it is illegal to ride on the sidewalk. Also, the width and amount of obstructions on sidewalks varies widely.
- bluGill 5y ago
  Cars and bikes mix better than bikes and walkers. Which is to say not very well. Walkers move in unpredictable ways and freeze when a bike is heading at them. Bikes move more like cars - they get a bit better handling, and are not as fast, but overall they act like cars. I wouldn't want to bike when there are many cars in the same lane as me, but it is still safer than biking on sidewalks where are many pedestrians.
- dfgdghdf 5y ago
  * It's illegal in most countries * It tends to be busy with pedestrians (not everywhere, as you mention) * It's not safe when crossing side-roads * It's inefficient if you walk at junctions
- obmelvin 5y ago
  Riding on the sidewalk is dangerous. Cars do not look for you when moving between the street and a parking lot/driveway/etc. I have had more close calls with cars riding on at most 10 miles of sidewalk (and that's being generous to be honest) in the past decade than with ~6000mi riding in the road.

jedberg 5y ago

Building offices and commercial buildings closer to homes. Most cities are not bikeable because it's just too far to get to anything that isn't a home.

ericd 5y ago

A very large percentage of the population are uncomfortable biking when there’s only a line of paint between them and automobiles. Separated bike lanes (ideally with physical barriers) increase the percentage of the population that will be willing to bike very considerably. If biking is going to make a major impact, we need that level of infrastructure change on at least some set of major thoroughfares in cities.

unethical_ban 5y ago

There is so much more to cycling safety than this. Many roads don't have shoulders, or don't have the width for dedicated bike lanes. Drivers are often very hostile to bike riders who take up car lanes, esp. if the bikes go under the speed limit and if the cars have to wait at all. Blindspots. Intersections. Parallel parking/parking in bike lanes. Safe and clean parking of bikes at destinations. The entire design and build requirements of roads have to be reconsidered to make cycling/scooters first class citizens in cities. As it stands in the US, most cities are pretty dangerous for cyclists.

Steltek 5y ago

From personal experience in town meetings: * City roads are narrow and don't have empty space just waiting to be painted green. Bike lanes will cost you parking spots or a car travel lane. This gets huge pushback. * Dangerous drivers must be removed from roads. You can be hit, killed even, with video evidence and the driver may escape punishment entirely. * Cities (or specifically NIMBY residents) must stop resisting increased density, mixed use, and useless parking minimums. Not everyone wants to live in a suburban development, miles from useful amenities. * Bikes and alternative transportation are compliments and need to be developed together. Biking to transit hubs is huge. It's not just green paint wherever it fits.

Packofbezens 5y ago
Dangerous <everything> must be removed from roads. There is a non-negligible amount of bikers skipping red lights, or using the sidewalk (forbidden in many cities), or even going the opposite way on one-way streets. The rationale in most cases is that a bike is not a motor vehicle and thus should not observe the same rules. This is a problem even in a scenario without cars, as it leads to collision vs. other bicyclists or pedestrians. This behaviour from a few individuals pushes anti-bikers to protest even more, making it harder for these initiatives to thrive. As ridiculous as it sounds, a deterrent similar to a license plate may become a necessity.
- Steltek 5y ago
  Not to say that behavior is okay but you're comparing apples and oranges. Drivers kill tens of thousands of people a year. Bikes are responsible for <1 person a year on average. People citing misbehavior by some cyclists need to get some perspective. Meanwhile, the driver who hit me (in a bike lane) defended himself to the cop by saying "it's hard to not hit bikers". He was not even given a warning. I had video evidence from a helmetcam.
  - rtlfe 5y ago
    > you're comparing apples and oranges More like comparing apples and shotguns.

bko 5y ago

$12 million a mile: Here’s how bike-lane costs shot sky high in Seattle The larger and more ambitious the project the greater the costs. I imagine a massive upgrade would be even more expensive https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/12-million-a-mile-heres-how-bike-lane-costs-shot-sky-high-in-seattle/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/12-...

soperj 5y ago
Considering what is spent on roads, like for instance, an overpass, is that even very much?
gowld 5y ago
Most of that cost was for preserving driving lanes while adding bike lanes. It could just as well be called the cost of car lanes.

jeanaimarre 5y ago

Things like protected bike lanes and bike only routes are essential if you want mass adoption. They cost more than paint and require political leadership that is currently lacking.

cabernal 5y ago

The trick is to get drivers to follow those markings. Where I live I see cars/trucks regularly park on bike lanes with little repercussion. Add to that a hostility between drivers and cyclists sharing the road; this might just be an issue where I live (Toronto) Cycling lane poles would be ideal, but a lot of drivers push back on this since they see it as precious space being taken away from them.

estebank 5y ago
In places where adequate protection was added, in some cases it was removed because drivers couldn't keep from leaving their lane. I guess drivers getting into accidents on their own is worse than lethal accidents involving cyclists on a bike lane. https://liveboston617.org/2020/12/16/dangerous-bike-lane-dividers-finally-dismantled-after-causing-multiple-roll-overs/ https://liveboston617.org/2020/12/16/dangerous-bike-lane-div...
zip1234 5y ago
It is space taken away from drivers, but drivers will treat a painted bike line as more space for a car. This is why the only safe bike lanes on a road with cars are ones that have physical protection from cars.

garyrichardson 5y ago

I live on the west coast in Canada. We have lots of bike lines. It's 30KM of them up and down multiple hills (most people would consider mountains) for me to get to work. Realistically, you've got to convince me to leave my 3000+sqft house (with bedrooms for all my kids) and yard to move to a 1000sqft apartment in the city (and make my kids share a room) and take on a bigger mortgage so that I'm closer to work. Also how do I get groceries for a family of 5 home on my bike? Life for the majority of people where I live has not been set up to be bicycle friendly and bike lanes don't change that barrier.

kubariet 5y ago
A more realistic proposal is making your neighborhood slightly denser and more pedestrian/bike/transit friendly. Most of the neighborhood can remain single family homes, but a central area should be slightly denser (3ish story buildings with retail on the bottom floor and residential apartments above). Your major transportation needs can now avoid cars in the following ways: 1. This central area should have a connection to a frequent public transit option which can get you to your job. BRT would be the easiest to roll out, but the ideal for most people would probably be some sort of medium/commuter rail with decent WiFi onboard and enough seating/frequent enough trains so that the average commuter can sit and work if they'd like. Obviously this won't take everyone out of their car, but the majority of commuters in your neighborhood could use this instead since it would be faster and more convenient. Ideally there would be trains/buses running at least every 10 minutes. 2. Because there is a retail area close to your residence you can realistically walk/bike to get groceries and do routine errands. Bike paths in your residential neighborhood make this easier because they feel (and are) much safer for everyday people to use instead of sharing streets with cars. Ideally the paths are safe enough for you to feel comfortable with your elderly relatives or children biking on them. This is obviously very different from how North American suburbs are set up today and would require a large amount of investment and changes in the way that we do public policy and planning. However, it is certainly possible to have suburbs that are bike/pedestrian friendly if you put the infrastructure in place to do so.
- garyrichardson 5y ago

saiya-jin 5y ago

Often in old European cities there is no space to take away from, unless you cut from pedestrian side, or rebuild whole block to have wider gap. Or you completely remove that single one way lane, and good bye resupplies for the shops/restaurants and good luck to those poor folks that will move in/away. The bigger the city, usually the older it is, and center looks like this - tons of single lane one-ways. US roads always stroke me as super wide and at least those I saw myself had plenty of space for this. One example to illustrate the difference - on say Swiss or French car parks, if you park perfectly in the center of the parking spot and if cars around you do the same, even with regular car (say BMW 3 series) you can't just open the door fully, often not even that half-open position in the middle. Significantly wider cars effectively take 2 spaces, but then again not many folks buy them here also for this reason.

soperj 5y ago
In the Netherlands they turn those single one way lanes into bike first streets.
occz 5y ago
>Or you completely remove that single one way lane, and good bye resupplies for the shops/restaurants and good luck to those poor folks that will move in/away. This is not true - we have streets that have been converted to be fully pedestrian+bicycle, and resupplies/moving in is not really an issue because these vehicles get exceptions. The sign combination 'Motor traffic forbidden / Exception for authorized vehicles' is pretty damn common in my European city.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

That's crappy infrastructure that's effectively inaccessible to most. Good biking infrastructure is physically segregated infrastructure, which is less trivial to build (though still way cheaper and easier than infrastructure for cars).

zucker42 5y ago

If you want a good impression of the type of shift that it's going to take to make U.S. streets more bike friendly, you can watch the great YouTube channel NotJustBikes, which overviews some of way the Netherlands' infrastructure is built from the ground up to be not car dependent. While the investment required to build physical bike infrastructure is small compared to other infrastructure projects, building cities for bikes requires overcoming political opposition and indifference, rethinking zoning laws and other harmful, bureaucratic rules and slowly reshaping cities to not rely on cars. It's not simply a matter of chucking a line of paint on a 35 mph road and then complaining when cyclists don't use it.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

My town painted a few lanes. Bike deaths didn't change. Bike ridership didn't increase. Paint doesn't do squat for making car lanes safe for bikes.