12 ms·
They're minor investments practically, and major investments politically. As you say, for many motorists, giving up space on even some roads to cyclists is tre
by TulliusCicero 6y ago
They're minor investments practically, and major investments politically.
As you say, for many motorists, giving up space on even some roads to cyclists is treated like some sort of war crime. There's very much of attitude of, "we can't just have a majority of the road space -- we need nearly all of it!"
- michael1999 6y agoIt can be a real winner politically, depending on the electoral boundaries. Roads have such limited throughput that a new bike lane might inconvenience only a few hundred people in cars, while opening up the city to thousands of people on bikes. Once politicians figure out that calculation, it can go very quickly.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoThat's a fair point. But demographically, often the people most protective of car space are the ones who show up loudly at community meetings. That can have an impact.
- adamcstephens 6y agoReducing lanes, when combined with other optimizations, can actually _improve_ travel time for cars. The problem is you have to actually implement the changes in order to prove this to people.
- Someone 6y agoEven more so when combined with reducing the number of cars, which adding a bike lane can easily do. If you replace 3 car lanes with n cars/lane/hour by 2 car lanes plus a bicycle lane, car traffic/lane/hour goes down as soon as you have over n cyclists/hour on that bike lane. At that density, that bike lane looks empty (https://www.boredpanda.com/space-required-to-transport-60-people https://www.boredpanda.com/space-required-to-transport-60-pe...)
- adamcstephens 6y agoI couldn’t find it in a quick search, but there aren’t videos comparing similar groups getting going from stopped. Because of the delay between cars getting going it takes significantly longer for an equivalent number of cars to move through a light than the bikes.
- WorldMaker 6y agoAn issue in that "political favor" calculus is money: A) Cars have a tall stack of interest groups with money to throw around politically. Manufacturers, Dealerships, Gas corporations. lobbying groups including, especially, but not limited to the AAA all have skin in the game and have thrown money at politics. (In general bicycle groups are rarely as organized, rarely have much in the way of profits or income to burn on political favors.) B) Taxes. Today roads are partly paid for with gas taxes and sometimes vehicle property taxes. A lot of motorists feel so entitled to the roads simply because they see those tax numbers directly on their gas bills and vehicle registration fees and think that they own the roads because they feel like they have the receipts. (Nevermind that there is no state in the US that entirely pays for roads out of such taxes, and the "I paid for it, so I own it" fallacy seems to refuse to ever actually prorate its "ownership" against the actual small percentages any individual contributes to the total budget.)
- selectodude 6y ago> Today roads are partly paid for with gas taxes and sometimes vehicle property taxes. Which is hilarious because road damage squares with the weight of the vehicle and bike lanes would need to be repaved maybe once per century.
- fooker 6y agoAny place with a seasonal temperature variation needs significant road repairs every 2-3 years, if not more often.
- avidiax 6y agoIs that because of the cracks formed by heavy vehicles?
- yardie 6y agoThose are potholes. A little 2-crew job. We're talking about roadwear. Where the actual asphalt grinds down to the expose the substrate. And in particularly bad cases the substrate breaks down and the road develops ruts. Potholes are a few hundred dollars in repair, roadwear is tens of thousands.
- autokad 6y agoI think you got it backwards mate. your basically asking hundreds of thousands of cars to suffer in favor of a few hundred bicyclists. Most people who bike strangely think most people want to bike but just cant. most dont want to. as an aging nation, most cant.
- dfgdghdf 6y agoWe can't all drive though. There is not physically enough space in an urban environment. If you don't provide good alternatives - cycling is one, trains and buses are also key - then everyone will be stuck in traffic.
- autokad 6y agoI didn't say we all should drive. I am just pointing out the backwards logic of the commenter, which I am 100% correct on. Hint: I don't drive, I walk.
- sergeykish 6y agoImagine if we decided to completely eliminate sidewalk, how would it change traffic? It is not about forcing others, it is about freedom of choice. Bycicle is just one of the modes of transportation. People without choice have to use car.
- autokad 6y agothat's a strawman. and also not very much. A lot of places either have no sidewalk or were already designed with a side walk and street in mind. so given that side walks usually don't even have enough space for a full lane of traffic, it would have 0 impact on traffic. Personally, I think subways should be the backbone of every city transportation system. But surprisingly even very environmentally conscious cities choose to forgo subway systems.
- sergeykish 6y agoYes, that's a strawman. Subways, roads and no sidewalk at all. And your answer is 0... How? Bridges and tunnels between buildings? People evolving to fly? Every person would require door to door taxi — tremendous increase in traffic. Same with bike lanes, take them away from Amsterdam and city would choke. Every Amsterdam driver benefits from less cars on the road.
- GVIrish 6y ago> Roads have such limited throughput that a new bike lane might inconvenience only a few hundred people in cars, while opening up the city to thousands of people on bikes. I think that is massively underselling the disruption to traffic. Depending on the city and the traffic patterns, hundreds of thousands or even millions of people could be commuting into a city on a given day. Reducing the car throughput on a significant portion of roads will cause backups to spread across the road network, affecting thousands. Maybe switching to bike lanes can be a net positive, but it all depends on the commuting patterns of people living and working the city. Then again, maybe if car commuting is made painful enough, it will accelerate shifts in commuting patterns. With careful planning the interests of vehicle commuters and cyclists can be balanced for maximum benefit, but I think in the long term changing zoning and development strategies will be what's needed to really make the shift.
- sergeykish 6y agoEach person that's on a bike is not in a car. And bike path throughtout is much bigger.
- GVIrish 6y agoPotentially. Sometimes a bike commuter is someone who would've taken the bus or subway to get to work. That said, it still depends on commuting patterns, road topography, etc. Some cities have a majority of workers driving in from distances that would be impractical for most people to bike. Making a big shift to bike lanes without making other changes to reroute and accommodate traffic would just cause gridlock and frustration for most. If shifting city centers to being bike centric is done on a longer timeline then capital improvements and redevelopment can be done to support it in a way that makes it more efficient for everyone. Some cities can do that on a shorter timeline based on current constraints, others would take longer. Ultimately I think it's the right direction to go in.
- u801e 6y ago> Roads have such limited throughput that a new bike lane might inconvenience only a few hundred people in cars, while opening up the city to thousands of people on bikes. You can maintain throughput and accommodate even more people on bikes if they just ride on the streets themselves rather than confining them in narrow bike lanes. A general purpose traffic lane can accommodate far more bikes than any bike lanes possibly could.
- moistbar 6y agoSpoken like someone who's never driven in a city. City streets are narrow and extremely uncomfortable to drive on as it is.
- TulliusCicero 6y agoThat's weird, I don't remember consenting to mind reading. Of course I've driven in big cities. I agree that it's not great...which is why the solution is to make alternative options as viable as possible: walking, biking, transit. Then you don't have to drive in big cities, and more space on roads is freed up for those who do. Cities are defined by their population density, and cars by their nature are geometrically inefficient. The solution is higher efficiency modes, not doubling down on something ill-suited to its environment.
- alex_g 6y agoThis reads like you're someone who's never cycled in a city.
- moistbar 6y agoOn the contrary, if you act like a car, using the same streets as the cars is quite safe in my experience. I've safely cycled with a cello on my back by simply following the rules most cyclists claim to follow but ignore: stopping at stop lights, signalling when I'm about to turn. You know, looking out for my own safety. EDIT: If following the same rules as everyone else is too much to ask, maybe you should just stay off the road no matter what you're driving.